• frog 🐸@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If someone kills a bunch of people no amount of philosophical quibbling and defining is going to make me think that person should be allowed to continue living in society, justice simply couldn’t be a concept at all in the absence of some form of free will

      Wouldn’t it require an act of free will to decide that the murderer had no free will and therefore shouldn’t be jailed? If we have no free will and are always acting in response to that complex array of dominos, then the judge and jury sending the murderer to prison have the same amount of choice as the murderer.

      • AndrasKrigare@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That would be correct, the judge and jury have no more choice than the murderer, which is none. Hypothetically, the appearance of choice doesn’t mean there is choice or free will. As a slightly tortured analogy, like “perfect” loaded dice, which appear that they could be anything but always give the same result.

    • howrar@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Punitive justice may not make sense without free will, but restorative and preventative justice still does.