Should the law be based on libertarian free will, and exclude compatibilism?

Ethics
1

Yes it should, compatibilism should be outlawed. Because the law should be based on the logic of fact and opinion which is used in ordinary conversation by people in general.

The logic people use in conversation in regards to choosing things, is creationism / libertarian free will. Decisons are spontaneous, the chooser is subjective, identified with a chosen expression, the result of the decision is objective, identified with a model of it. A decision originates new information, the information which way the decision turns out. People originate what occurs through their decisions.

One may have some dispute about exactly what logic is used in conversation, and if it can be established that the logic used would be compatibillism, then the law should be based on compatibilism.

I read compatibilist Dennett asserting that people do not mean it when they say they could have chosen otherwise, and what they really mean is that they would have chosen otherwise, if things had been different.

Which is Dennett sort of investigating the logic people use in conversation, but then also rejecting that logic.

The question is not, what do people think it means to choose, the question is, what rules do people use with the word “choose” in conversation. Investigating this way obtains creationism. So the law should not pay mind to the opinions of people in general on how choosing works, the law should only pay mind to the logic that people in general use with the word “choose” in practise.

It is wrong to arbitrarily invent some idea about how choosing works, which is what compatibilism does, and then to use that idea in law. If you want to change the meaning of the word “choose”, then you must basically run a promotion campaign to change the logic that people use in practise with the word, and if the logic is changed in practise, then the law must also use that changed meaning.

I’ve seen several compatibilists arguing that compatibilism should be used in the law, which I consider irresponsible experimentation on people. There should instead be an article zero added to the law, which article would contain the definitions of words, which article would contain the basic logic of fact and opinion, which are the foundations for all reasoning.

So all the rest of the laws woult be framed in the article zero of the law with the logic of fact and opinion. Because whatever is in all the rest of the articles of the law, it must be either some fact, or some opinion.

2

There is no point in making compatibilism or determinism illegal with respect to the law. That is because the idea of people not being metaphysically responsible for their own actions is a non-starter in any practical context. The brute fact is that we do hold people responsible for their actions. Nobody was ever acquitted at trial with a defence of “the laws of physics made me do it”.

3

I don’t think the law cares about the minutae of exactly what free will philosophically means, tbh. That’s for philosophers to circle-jerk about.

4

What does this mean? That it should be illegal for anyone to believe that free will is compatible with determinism, and that anyone who does should be fined or imprisoned?

5

I don’t think that is true, there is no stable standard of holding people accountable. A lot of judges appear to be giving very light sentences because of arguing someone was predetermined to do what they did. Also these same judges appear to be giving very harsh sentences for people whose politics or religion the judge disagrees with.

6

It means that words should be defined in the law with the libertarian definition of those words.

7

Judges have to deal with decisions people make, it requires an understanding of what it means to make a decision.

8

Really? What country is that happening in then?

9

It doesn’t matter. If it’s determinism, the added input of the laws and the consequences of breaking them factors into the decision making process. Either way, the laws need to be in place.

10

Just what’s in the news in the West generally. There is no brute fact of people being held responsible for their actions in a court of law, that is up to the judge mostly if they are or not.

11

Yeah i really don’t think they care about libertarian free will one way or the other.

12

One difference is, there is no subjectivity in the compatibilist idea of free will. All the elements in the compatibilist idea are objective. Is that going to make for different judgments? Yes. The compatibilist idea of free will focuses on the values that were used to evaluate the options with. While the libertarian idea of free will focuses on the (subjective) spirit in which the decision was made.

13

Now from what I see on the news with the court rulings. And asking AI about it, it says the courts now favor compatibilism in practise.

14

Yes. But, in both cases, having the laws can impact the decision. And there’s no way to prove which, if either, is the answer.

15

No it means, any ideas about compatibilism are irrellevant. The procedure is:

  • find out the logic that is used with the word choosing in conversation
  • use that definition in the law

The logic used is the libertarian idea of free will, therefore compatibilist ideas are thrown out.

And it means judges should have consideration for the spirit in which a decision is made, which consideration would be subjective. Although you can also make standardized subjective judgments, so that the judge isn’t so much making subjective judgments, but is instead using the standardized subjective judgments.

16

I see no evidence to suggest that is true in the UK. The problem we have here is insufficient prison places, so people are being systematically let out when they have only served one third of their sentence, to make space for new prisoners. Nobody took responsibility for building new prisons 20 years ago.

17

That would be obviously intentional in my opinion. It’s not reality that people forget to build prisons.

18

What do you see in the news that says anything one way or another about the specific philosophical interpretation of free will courts use?

And if AI says courts favor compatibilism, how do they favor it? In what specific way do they favor it?

19

Yes, that’s the use the laws are based on. And it’s the use I think is accurate. But there’s no way to prove it. And it could work either way.

20

I guess the lighter sentences for blatant crimes, and the harscher sentences for hatespeech and so on, is due to compatibilism.

AI (grok in this case) is actually also compatibilist. The AI explained that compatibilism works better than libertarian free will, because if choosing is conceived of in terms of selection of options, then to choose differently then you only have to change the values that were used to evaluate the options with. So this way behavior can be easily manipulated by just changing the values.

While with the libertarian idea of free will, you cannot very easily change your emotions, because emotions aren’t objective things.

So I think that is why the judges like compatibilism, because it is just an illusion of easy changing the values, and no difficult soulsearching or anything like that.