Sam’s new post is excellent and slightly clarifies some of his points presented in FREE WILL. But… I do take issue with this fragment of his post:
“We should admit that a person is unlucky to inherit the genes and life experience that will doom him to psychopathy. That doesn’t mean we can’t lock him up, or kill him in self-defense, but hating him is not rational, given a complete understanding of how he came to be who he is. Natural, yes; rational, no. Feeling compassion for him would be rational, however—or so I have argued.’
Why is ‘hating’ irrational and ‘feeling compassion’ rational. How can this be conclusively proven? Is it irrational to ‘hate’ terrorists? Why can’t an individual homo sapien express the emotion of hatred toward another member of his/her species for his/her violent actions. Why do we have to take into account the lack of free will? How does that alter the results? I don’t understand why that changes things. I would think it’s rational to ‘hate’ a violent person’s actions and understanding that they have no free will, just want them killed to eliminate them from the gene pool and as a deterrent for them ever committing another deadly act. Can ‘hate’ never be rational? Is Sam’s opinion only valid within the context of Judeo-Christian values? This bothers me.