Let us say that society is composed of people who are expected to be responsible for their actions. People are elevated above the status of robots, machines, computers, and tools such that they are expected to have free will.
In turn, say someone denies free will such that someone expects rights without responsibilities. The value of someone’s existence is comparison to robots, machines, computers, and tools is moot beyond anthropocentric prejudice.
Part of a law-abiding society’s goals is to prevent the performance of crime. This entails preserving the free willing attitude such that people don’t frantically claim they can’t be held responsible for their actions. Furthermore, criminals must be inhibited from engaging in “moon or bust” ethical perspectives. That is they must not believe that crime is ever the lesser of two evils because the chance of being caught and punished has an infinite negative penalty. The chance of succeeding in crime would never be worth the risk.
Therefore, should free will deniers be tortured on the following three grounds?:
The threat of torture must be used to prevent people from denying free will in the first place.
The performance of torture must be performed to show the threat is not merely fake.
Fellow potential free will deniers must be impressed to prevent them from believing the government isn’t serious.
To be clear, the goal here is to inhibit free will deniers from provoking crime taking place upon themselves as well. For example, some deny free will deniers can claim that structure comes before agency such that they are compelled to behave in a way which forces potential criminals to assume the risk of misunderstandings. In turn, potential criminals can actually be honest citizens who are simply expecting to be treated as respectful, so they act out in defense of their own dignity.
You’re asking if it’s ok to promote the kind of government depicted in books like 1984? It’s not ok. Do you expect anybody to disagree? Or are you trying to illustrate something? Have I completely misread this?
If anything’s thought police, it’s denying free will by punishing others who are respectful citizens. That is the denial of free will forces fellow citizens to put up with someone who expects rights without responsibilities. Those who embrace free will are expected to control themselves at the accommodation of those who deny it and can get away with losing self-control.
Sounds like you’re just describing existing justice systems then. People who act below a certain baseline of acceptability, given whatever kind of political structure, pay some price. So you’re just talking about actions? You might as well just ask if torture is ok, and dispense with any reference to thoughts and beliefs. What are you trying to get at? What’s the point of this line of reasoning, which hopefully is just a thought experiment? I don’t get it.
This thread was brought to you by the writers of such threads as ‘is kicking Grannies in the head acceptable?’ ‘what’s this white stuff under my foreskin?’ and ‘what time is it?’
I get Daks point, I agree that there is a fundamental difference between people who use the automaton-model as an excuse to just accept any behavior on their own part, and those minds that insist on taking control of the entity they are the consciousness of. The latter are possibly fit to govern the world, the former are not fit to govern anything at all.
Where I think that the proposal of murder is a hyperbole, I agree with the basic sentiment.
I just think that people who believe in “free will” or as I prefer to call it “self-determination” are ontologically separated from those who do not, in a way consistent with the master-slave dichotomy.
The latter believe in the “ought” model - “it just ought to be like this and if it isn’t I am going to sulk” - the former believe in the “is” model - “it is like this, thus I can do such and such if I want it to be different in this or that way.”
I don’t think either side is consistently as you describe. That’s just a silly generalization, something YOU came up with as what YOU think would be a reasonable consequence of said belief. YOU think that determinism implies the ‘ought’ model (a bit ironic, considering that most free-willers consider determinism to negate morality, and thus explicitly be an anti-ought model), but empirically, does determinism result in people who sit around and sulk if things aren’t as they like, any more than free will results in that? I’d like to see some stats on that. Until then, it’s no more valid than “Atheism would just make everyone into rapist-murderers.” It’s an odd, anti-empirical psychologizing of the other side, based on what YOU think are the consequences, not anyone else.
It is not as futile as it seems.
Consider dogma.
Dogma’s are accepted without accepting the responsibility for accepting them.
Doctrines like American Constitutionalism on the other hand are accepted on the very ground of consciously choosing it, because it is found noble, instead of because it is deemed objectively true (despite the “we consider these truths to be self-evident” schtick).
Dak am I correctly representing your view when I make it about “true because good” (free will, consciousness as real agent) versus “true because true” (consciousness as contingency)?
It seems to me if you believe in free will and you value it, then you don’t want to force people to have the same beliefs.
Further, if you are successful it is evidence against free will.
You also need to define free will. You wouldn’t want to kill any compatibilists…or would you?
