> due to circumstances like upbringing, environment etc. and a society which failed you.
It's always someone else's fault.
It's always someone else's fault.
Blaming society for one's own actions is dishonorable. You get to choose, and you are responsible for your choice.
As humans, we have the capacity to hold multiple concepts like honor and contextual awareness at the same time when adjudicating a crime. Someone who stole to feed their family when they were in a dire situation should not be given the same sentence as someone who stole for personal gain. Our ability to acknowledge complex situations and deal with them also separates us from animals.
It's still wrong. Having a need does not entitle one to steal. Honor is not something you apply only when it doesn't cost you.
It cannot be dishonorable to care for your loved ones. If circumstances leave few other options, stealing is an honorable act.
Society is not that easy and just because your father said something, doesn't make it true.
Honor is a concept and for sure a great character trait but if you don't get teached a concept like honor, you don't follow it.
> just because your father said something, doesn't make it true.
He had a pretty good track record. For example, his squadron trusted him with their lives.
Some learn how to think critical, some don't. Some are intelligent, some are empathic, some don't understand the world very well.
Don't simplify this by a snarky and ignorant comment.
I'm not even against moving people out of our society, its fucked up enough that this is necessayr, but i'm against cruelty and i'm for helping.
It is simple. People have free will. Bad people know what right and wrong is, and they chose wrong.
I'm still waiting for a definition that could even suggest otherwise. I know I won't get one, because nobody I have this discussion with is ever capable of coming up with one.
If you can't even define the terms, why do you imagine I should "know" it to be true?
Saying "He had no free will" doesn't mean "The state has no right to confine him away from people he might hurt."
You get it.
Saying "he had no free will" would mean there's no basis for using incarceration for vengeance, and it ought to change how prisoners are treated. It does not take away a legitimate need to lock people who remain a threat away. Nor does it entirely take away a justification for some use of incarceration as deterrent, to the limited extent it actually works.
It just means a different calculation over how and when the harm done to those incarcerated outweigh the risks and harms to society of letting them go free, as well as a collective responsibility of society for addressing the conditions that causes these outcomes in the first place.
But a society that accepts that people have less or no actual agency would still have legitimate reasons to incarcerate, just fewer, and still has legitimate reasons for a criminal justice system, just with different priorities.
E.g. protecting against genuine risks of reoffending is still a moral reason to incarcerate where there are no alternatives - maximising freedom means protecting people against real threats even if the person making up that threat is not able to choose differently.
But if you accept that there is no free will, then the moral basis for conditions that amount to vengeance disappears. Society won't collapse over that - in fact, we know from the reoffending rates in places like Norway that treating prisoners better correlates strongly with less reoffending, and so even if you don't buy that there is no free will, it remains the most moral choice purely on the basis of lessening the suffering inflicted on the rest of society as well.
If you accept there is no free will, most of the other logical consequences comes down to how you approach society as a whole, and how criminal justice changes is just a side effect: If people have no free will, then a whole lot of arguments use to e.g. deny benefits and welfare breaks down, and we arrive at a strong moral argument for improving conditions for the poor since we know poverty correlates strongly with more crime, which directly produces harm both for society as a whole and directly for the perpetrator and victims.
None of this causes society to stop functioning. It just stops people using "free" will as an excuse to not to look for root causes and focus on what actually works to reduce offending and reoffending rates by hiding behind immoral ideas about moral hazards.
P.S. I note you've still not tried to actually provide any argument for how free will could even potentially exist.
And that’s ignoring all the laws people break on the regular.
Nor did I say that all laws are just.
I'm not your honey, either.
Because otherwise, “they knew the law and chose to break it, therefore they get what’s coming to them” is a bit Javert from Les Mis.
> “they knew the law and chose to break it, therefore they get what’s coming to them”
Please don't make up quotes and attribute them to me. That's called the strawman fallacy.
> "People have free will. Bad people know what right and wrong is, and they chose wrong."[0]
Broader Context: In response to a commentary on how 'good and bad' can be complicated:
> "It's always someone else's fault."[1]
Broader-broader Context: Prison is punishment, etc.
So, a reasonable chain of thought here and paraphrase of what you've said is: "people know right from wrong" -> we're in the context of crime and punishment, so this is operating as a substitute for "they know what's legal and illegal". If it's not, it doesn't belong here, because at this point we should all know that legality != morality.
"and they chose wrong" -> therefore they chose the consequences - they chose punishment. The colloquial way of saying that is "they get what's coming to them".
So, while those weren't your words, was that your implicit statement? And if not, what is the implicit statement?
I ask because the people in those cells are real, and 23 of them died of heat.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49834799
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49834226Recall that I wrote this to you:
"I did not say there was no injustice happening. Nor did I say that all laws are just."
> People have free will. Bad people know what right and wrong is, and they chose wrong.
The context being that the "bad" person is such simply because they chose to break the law. Even if it doesn't match your thoughts, surely you can see how one might read your comments as both claiming that laws are not morals, and also that those who break the law made the "wrong" (moral) choice (put another way: laws are morals).
Breaking the law is not strictly a moral failure. It can be, but they have an "orthogonal" relationship. To that point:
> I did not say there was no injustice happening. Nor did I say that all laws are just.
Choosing to follow an unjust law is a moral failure. That moral failure is baked into the word "unjust". This blanket statement that the choice to commit a crime is a choice to be "bad" is not self-evident (or it's laughably tautological) and, regardless, is contradicted by the assertion that not all laws are "just".
Of course, one can assume you have more nuanced thoughts than that; the point of my coment is that you've not communicated that nuance here, so you appear to be contradicting yourself: saying both that laws are morals and that they are not morals.
Short term goals vs. long term goals requires long horizion thinking. Critical thinking is necessary to break through cultural heritage. I grew up a christian, took me until 14 to denounce this garbage.