Because it's all irrelevant, because you have zero control over any of it. So who cares if they are hurt or not hurt. How can you even argue whether people should be punished or not? They either will be or they won't be. There is no choice here, everything is just happening, and it will happen however it was going to happen. At least that would be the case if there was no free will.

Ok, I should clarify that I mean punishment in a vindictive manner. I see it as separate from results-based methods of handling criminals. We should lock someone up until we think they're not going to hurt anyone again, and no longer. As opposed to locking someone up forever because they hurt someone in the past, or executing them for it. Pragmatism or punishment is a matter of intent.

But we can't help but punish him. It's our fate, right?

Yes because personal identity is a subjective reality. We have a sense of ourselves as bounded, relatively continuous & coherent over time and in space in the experiencing, self-aware self. But there’s no doubt that intrinsic and extrinsic factors shape and move us, from your microbiome or thyroid to language and cultural ideologies.

Exactly how we did up until now. When I was young I was much obsessed with the questions around free will, but then I came to ask myself "ok then?". Why should I care if I have "free will" or not? It's not like I can let go of myself, and suiciding is pretty idiotic as an answer. Furthermore, as a society we surely cannot leave murderers or thieves around after giving a negative answer to the question of free will. We should still build our society (as we've always done) incentivizing certain behaviours and unincentivizing certain others. So, in the end, I decided this was the most pointless question that philosophy ever engaged with.

Free will or not. I still think we should punish people who do bad things. Also the very concept of “now we can forgive those who do bad things” seems like a decision to me.

I personally am 50/50 on whether free will is real or not. Since QM means there is no determinism in the universe there is a possibility that conscious beings could have some influence over the probabilities. Not saying that is the case but it’s not 100% case closed on free will. If the universe was completely deterministic then yes, but the universe is inherently random

Well I guess moping around feeling powerless about not being in control of your life or decisions is ultimately something you do not have a say in. I am just glad my non free will is set up in a way that I can still “make” choices.

Every sub atomic particle interaction since the Big Bang has predetermined that not only would someone design those glasses, but someone would buy it and wear it just to tell you he had no say in the matter, it wad preordained by the forces of the universe.

I'd say punishment, as I meant it, arises from a combination of intent and results.

Speeding tickets? Are intended to keep roadways safer, and are effective at deterring speeding. Not a punishment.

Now look at the death penalty. It's not really deterring people from murder more than a life sentence. In America, it's wasteful. Based on those two points and the death penalty's continued usage, I can infer that there is vindictive intent propping it up. That is a punishment.

What problem? What shallowness? You have described reality. The criminal's fate was to do harm and be harmed. They are helpless. They are to be both pitied and guarded against, but not hated. Not punished further for the poor hand they were dealt.

Carrot vs stick. Punishment can act as a deterrent to some (many!). If I know police are running radar on the highway ahead, I slow down to avoid them punishing me with a ticket or permanent mark on my driving record.

If I think no one else is watching and I won’t hurt anyone else, I don’t stop at stop signs, because I don’t foresee the punishment (though this may ultimately be foolish of me).

I don’t go around physically fighting people I don’t like or people who antagonize me. I have been trained in society to know this is wrong. My moral compass does not want to hurt other people for perceived slights; rather I’d only fight to defend against grave and imminent danger. I also fear the repercussion of escalated violence, such as a knife or gun being pulled, which is an instant form of personal punishment. I fear hurting someone else so badly I kill them or permanently damage them. I fear their harm, and I fear my own punishment.

I do not want to go to jail and be separate from society. I want to conform to the good parts of society happy to discuss further, but I think punishment has its validity.

Doesn't mean what won't happen?

If we approached setting up our societies in a scientific manner as complex systems that require tuning for specific goals then it would be no issue at all. Framing societal design in a moral framework has always been one of the main issues preventing humanity from progressing toward a better future.

Well if there's no free will then we can't help but choose to punish criminals. And since they have no free will but continue to be anti-social, then we have no choice but to lock them up or execute them.

See the kind of problems you get into when you discuss free will on this shallow basis?

> Just seems to pass the buck on the inconsistency - how can puppets be hurt?

I don't really see how the question is coherently connected with the topic. Even just granting a fully deterministic world, why do you think that somehow contains an implication that an individual could not be hurt? You could say they were determined to be hurt, but how would it make sense to say they cannot be hurt? Causation and "ability to feel" are not remotely the same question.

Just seems to pass the buck on the inconsistency - how can puppets be hurt? And who/what at the strings has decided they ought not to be?

I really don't think the whole puppet idea and also using 'I' are at all consistent with each other. It's like pretending to be puppeteer AND puppet, whichever is most convenient at any given moment.

To be fair - that is kind of the point of the site, most of the interviews are like that. It’s ‘What Is It Like To Be a Philosopher’, not ‘What do Philosophers Think’.

Doesn't mean it wont happen, though.

You can't choose to do anything if there's no free will. Thus, one could not choose to endeavor to live as if free will existed.

I, too, am a puppet, using the language of puppets, referring to other puppets as they wish to be referred to, because otherwise they would be hurt.

Besides that, I don't really understand what you're saying.

I'm not sure why you'd keep referring to someone as 'they' or acknowledge their reference to 'I' if you forgive them for anything. If the thing seen is just a puppet, you can forgive what occurred but would you go and refer to the puppet as it's own entity that is worthy of 'they' or using 'I'? Would seem odd.

Wouldn't that be like endeavoring to live your life like you have supernatural powers?

Not saying a person can't, but that'd be the decision.

>We like to think that we are making decisions based on preferences,
>
>but in reality what we prefer has been shaped by our genetics and environment/life experiences

Why are you treating those two things as different?

​

>this lack of free will implies none of us have true moral responsibility for our actions

Well, apart from the idea of 'true moral responsibility' being treated as if it exists like some kind of physics, where does such an implication come from?

I'm not sure how things can be 'factors beyond our control' and also there be any 'our'. If as an organism it's all 'factors beyond control' all the way down then there is no 'our' or 'I'. The view seems to keep personal identity as an individual ("I'm me!") but abandon responsibility as an individual ("I didn't do it, the factors did it!").

>Here's the problem - this lack of free will implies none of us have true moral responsibility for our actions, as mentioned in the interview, and operating according to this assumption is detrimental to both individuals and society.

It is not wholly detrimental. It grants us the liberating power to forgive anyone, for anything. Why hate anyone for their actions, when they are just an automaton, like I am? And you do not need hatred to take pragmatic actions, to protect yourself from bad people.

There already are serious moral dilemmas with punishing criminals. Meaning that lack of free will is just another reason to not punish them.

We always should have been jailing, rehabilitating, or otherwise handling criminals solely for the protection of others. That belief is not in conflict with lack of free will's moral implications.

>So in short, we do not have free will but should endeavor to live life as if we do.

But if we don't have free will, and if Schopenhauer is correct in that we cannot will what we will, then how would one endeavor to live life as if he has free will?