Dylann Roof Sentenced to Death

[Mr.Obvious]

I can't accept determinism. If determinism is right then it is OK to rob a 7-11, and OK for the cop to kill the perp without trial.  Maybe people who can't stand responsibility, want to believe that they have no choice?  Sartre will disagree.

If determinism is right, that still doesn't make it OK. And it being OK or not OK doesn't do anything to make the existance of free will likely. But it's all in how you want to define free will.

[Hydra009]

I must disagree on the free will question.  If someone holds a gun to your head, to make you do something, then you aren't doing that of your free will.  But others would say, if you don't tell the gunman to blow your brains out, then you are a coward.  I can't accept determinism.  If determinism is right then it is OK to rob a 7-11, and OK for the cop to kill the perp without trial.  Maybe people who can't stand responsibility, want to believe that they have no choice?  Sartre will disagree.

Sam Harris has a very lengthy and complicated talk about free will, determinism, and moral culpability, which I suggest you check out if you're legitimately interested in the subject.

[FaithIsFilth]

I must disagree on the free will question.  If someone holds a gun to your head, to make you do something, then you aren't doing that of your free will.  But others would say, if you don't tell the gunman to blow your brains out, then you are a coward.  I can't accept determinism.  If determinism is right then it is OK to rob a 7-11, and OK for the cop to kill the perp without trial.  Maybe people who can't stand responsibility, want to believe that they have no choice?  Sartre will disagree.

We all have a gun being held to our heads. Our environment, circumstances, and influences are the gun that leads us to do what we do, along with the makeup of our brain.

Like Mr. Obvious pointed out, it being ok or not ok to rob that 7/11 or kill that perp is not something that makes free will any more likely.

[Baruch]

Sam Harris has a very lengthy and complicated talk about free will, determinism, and moral culpability, which I suggest you check out if you're legitimately interested in the subject.

Modern scientists are either determinists (Newtonian/Einstineian) or probabilistic (Bohr/Feynman).  They can't seem to make up their minds ;-)  Either way, they would deny, if they were consistent, any moral agency by individuals or the State.  When nobody is responsible for anything (credit or blame), society is pretty well cooked.  This is the fault of reductionism ... even if my body is made up of atoms, and atoms carry not credit or blame, I do.  But one can wave the magic wand of ephiphenomenalism at it ... say that free will is an emergent property (cough).

[Baruch]

If determinism is right, that still doesn't make it OK. And it being OK or not OK doesn't do anything to make the existance of free will likely. But it's all in how you want to define free will.

Freely redefining words is only done by the President, and only if he is Bill Clinton ;-)  You can believe or not in free will, but if you do something illegal, I still want you arrested, even if you are not guilty.  Legality is only about restraining antisocial elements ... it has nothing to do with guilt.  Lots of people do illegal things, and feel no guilt, or their peers might see them as not guilty (the illegality was justified ala Thoreau).

[Baruch]

We all have a gun being held to our heads. Our environment, circumstances, and influences are the gun that leads us to do what we do, along with the makeup of our brain.

Like Mr. Obvious pointed out, it being ok or not ok to rob that 7/11 or kill that perp is not something that makes free will any more likely.

You are looking at it backward.  If you rob a 7/11 for any reason, if you are poor or rich, I want you arrested.  I don't care if you think you were free or not to rob a 7/11 ... argue with your defense attorney ;-)  Traditionally, your circumstances don't decide your conviction, it only moderates your punishment.

[Mr.Obvious]

Freely redefining words is only done by the President, and only if he is Bill Clinton ;-)  You can believe or not in free will, but if you do something illegal, I still want you arrested, even if you are not guilty.  Legality is only about restraining antisocial elements ... it has nothing to do with guilt.  Lots of people do illegal things, and feel no guilt, or their peers might see them as not guilty (the illegality was justified ala Thoreau).

Oh, and if I do something against the law, I will be guilty. Wether I have real free will or not, you are right to wish to see me punished duly. Vice versa, on that, and I don't believe in free will. True free will is irrelevant in this matter. None of us experience this lack of free will.

[Baruch]

Oh, and if I do something against the law, I will be guilty. Wether I have real free will or not, you are right to wish to see me punished duly. Vice versa, on that, and I don't believe in free will. True free will is irrelevant in this matter. None of us experience this lack of free will.

Guilt and shame are emotional states.  Guilt is individual, shame is collective.  The legal definition of guilt is bullshit (lawyers!).  Juries and judges convict innocent people all the time.  If the accused is truncheoned enough they actually believe they are guilty or ashamed of things they didn't do.  This is well known in American criminology.

[Mr.Obvious]

Guilt and shame are emotional states.  Guilt is individual, shame is collective.  The legal definition of guilt is bullshit (lawyers!).  Juries and judges convict innocent people all the time.  If the accused is truncheoned enough they actually believe they are guilty or ashamed of things they didn't do.  This is well known in American criminology.

Baruch, I don't dislike you. But sometimes discussing something with you can be quite frustrating :P

[Baruch]

Baruch, I don't dislike you. But sometimes discussing something with you can be quite frustrating :P

That is because we can't see each other, read each other's lips, and compare that to the words coming out ;-)

[Unbeliever]

[Dreamer]

Dylann Roof does negate many of my objections... He is undoubtedly guilty.  I won't cry when he's killed, but that even such a heinous man as he is sentenced to the death penalty doesn't sway me to suddenly support the death penalty.  It's cruel and unusual punishment.  The fact that he is cruel and unusual doesn't change that.

[Unbeliever]

Two wrongs don't make a right - didn't we all learn this as children?

[SGOS]

Two wrongs don't make a right - didn't we all learn this as children?

Not very well, I guess.

[Baruch]

Two wrongs don't make a right - didn't we all learn this as children?

But have you grown up yet?

In some languages a double negative isn't neutral, it is simply a double negative.