Do we really have any choice?

JamesWesley · Post by **JamesWesley** » Tue Feb 23, 2010 6:02 pm

It seems to me that any concept of free choice or free will is nothing more than simply an illusion if there exists an omniscient being.
Is this so even without the existence of an omniscient being? Do we really have a choice in anything we do? Or do previous experiences and events decide our "choices" for us?

Your thoughts?

Miles · Post by **Miles** » Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:02 pm

Like the notion of free will, there's no such thing as a truly free choice. All "choices" are consequent (dependent) "choices." And this is with or without an omniscient being.

JamesWesley · Post by **JamesWesley** » Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:25 pm

Miles wrote:Like the notion of free will, there's no such thing as a truly free choice. All "choices" are consequent (dependent) "choices." And this is with or without an omniscient being.

Would you agree then that a murderer had no real choice in murdering his victim? I am not saything that the murderer should be forgiven of his crime, anything that causes a tremondous amount of human suffering I am completly agaisnt.

Miles · Post by **Miles** » Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:25 am

JamesWesley wrote: Would you agree then that a murderer had no real choice in murdering his victim? I am not saything that the murderer should be forgiven of his crime, anything that causes a tremondous amount of human suffering I am completly agaisnt.

I would indeed agree. And just as he had no choice in committing murder, a judge and jury would have no choice in finding him guilty. . . . . . or not, as the circumstances dictate.

JamesWesley · Post by **JamesWesley** » Wed Feb 24, 2010 10:32 am

Miles wrote:
JamesWesley wrote: Would you agree then that a murderer had no real choice in murdering his victim? I am not saything that the murderer should be forgiven of his crime, anything that causes a tremondous amount of human suffering I am completly agaisnt.
I would indeed agree. And just as he had no choice in committing murder, a judge and jury would have no choice in finding him guilty. . . . . . or not, as the circumstances dictate.

Is it the murderer's fault that he killed if had no real control over the choices that he made?

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:24 am

JamesWesley wrote: Is it the murderer's fault that he killed if had no real control over the choices that he made?

Why is fault an issue? Surely we can grow past the ancient notion of retributive justice.

JamesWesley · Post by **JamesWesley** » Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:18 pm

McCulloch wrote:
JamesWesley wrote: Is it the murderer's fault that he killed if had no real control over the choices that he made?

Why is fault an issue? Surely we can grow past the ancient notion of retributive justice.

Why is fault not an issue? How is fault an ancient notion?

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:40 pm

McCulloch wrote: Is it the murderer's fault that he killed if had no real control over the choices that he made?

JamesWesley wrote: Why is fault an issue? Surely we can grow past the ancient notion of retributive justice.

JamesWesley wrote: Why is fault not an issue? How is fault an ancient notion?

If it could be shown that a murderer had no real control over his choices, would that make him any less dangerous? There are good reasons to punish the perpetrators of crime. But allocating blame and getting retribution are not one of them.

JamesWesley · Post by **JamesWesley** » Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:48 pm

McCulloch wrote:
McCulloch wrote: Is it the murderer's fault that he killed if had no real control over the choices that he made?

JamesWesley wrote: Why is fault an issue? Surely we can grow past the ancient notion of retributive justice.

JamesWesley wrote: Why is fault not an issue? How is fault an ancient notion?

If it could be shown that a murderer had no real control over his choices, would that make him any less dangerous? There are good reasons to punish the perpetrators of crime. But allocating blame and getting retribution are not one of them.

It would not change the fact that he killed people. I believe that some sort of punshiment should be given to the murderer. Not for retribution, but for the hope of changing his "choices" further down the road.

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Wed Feb 24, 2010 4:11 pm

McCulloch wrote: If it could be shown that a murderer had no real control over his choices, would that make him any less dangerous? There are good reasons to punish the perpetrators of crime. But allocating blame and getting retribution are not one of them.

JamesWesley wrote: It would not change the fact that he killed people. I believe that some sort of punshiment should be given to the murderer. Not for retribution, but for the hope of changing his "choices" further down the road.

Absolutely right. The existence of a justice system becomes part of the environmental influences which may partially determine behavior, either by limiting his available choices or influencing them. You see, blame has nothing to do with it.