why? What’s the reasoning? How does compatibilism factor in to that?
It has to do with if someone believes of choosing in terms of selection of options, then they have the feelings of doing their best associated to that idea of selection of the best option. So these feelings of doing their best really come to the forefront. While the regular emotions, they don’t figure much at all anymore, because there is no subjective element in a selection procedure. So you get the judges who judge based on the feelings of doing their best, and the regular emotions are sidelined.
Prisons cost money. Other things were prioritised.
In the netherlands, where I am, there they throw out a lot of cases just because of the courts being too busy. I think, being too busy, not building prisons, it’s really just policy to cut back on punishing people.
I think that anyone who brings philosophy into the court room and who ignores the evidence of the case should be held in contempt. This whether they are supporters of free will, with their rank hypocrisy and superstitious nonsense. Or whether they are compatbilists secretly under the influence and direction of Dan Dennett.
After a fair trial, the supporters of free will should confess to their lack of charity and as they, and only they, are responsible for their actions they should go to prison until they are too old to be a further threat to the community.
The compatibilists should also ask the courts’ forgiveness and should do the mandatory four hours community service. To treat them more severely would be wrong because, as they will tell us, they could not have done otherwise.
1 Like
I don’t understand how those words you just said result in lighter sentences for blatant crimes and harsher sentences for hate crimes.
Which means that people can get away with anything since their possible inability to do otherwise constitutes reasonable doubt, unless of course one can prove humans have libertarian free will, in which case 1) About half of all philosophy will have been resolved, and 2) there would no need for the laws to be explicit about it.
To prove a crime has been committed requires evidence of certain actions having happened. The question of intent relates to a broad range of concerns. Was the violence an accident or is it likely to be repeated? Even when there was no specific intent to harm, negligence and carelessness are punished to discourage a repetition of the bad action.
The operation of the judgement is the same whether viewed as a free choice of the will or an input for the Skinner box.
Demonstrating malicious intent requires evidence that distinguishes the crime from accidental or spontaneous emotional harm. The criteria for that judgement requires evidence that reveals a different set of precursors than a act done without intent. Consider the following from Holmes:
In some cases, actual malice or intent, in the common meaning of those words, is an element in crime. But it will be found that, when it is so, it is because the act when done maliciously is followed by harm which would not have followed the act alone, or because the intent raises a strong probability that an act, innocent in itself, will be followed by other acts or events in connection with which it will accomplish the result sought to be prevented by the law.
–Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr, The Common Law, page 87
This relates to your OP about Nazis because hate speech is not just an expression of personal opinion but an instrument for hurting people.
Because it provides the feelings of doing their best, to the judge. The judge is doing their utmost best to help the perpetrator, resulting in a light sentence. On the other hand, the hatespeech runs counter to the feeling of doing your best, resulting in the harscher punishment.
Although I can admit my argument appears irrational. Because for instance a judge letting a rapist go free, someone going around raping people can hardly be considered this person doing their best.
I must guess that somehow the hatespeech more harms the feelings of doing your best, than raping people does.
Yeah I don’t see any reasoning in what you’re saying tbh. I’ll drop it though.
I will try to explain it better. Basically compatibilism is the logic of selection of options. Which doesn’t work as an idea of choosing, so therefore it results in a conceptual mess. People who behave according to a conceptual mess, do not really behave rationally.
In the mind of compatibilist, the decisions they make refer back to the values that were used to evaluate the options with. The emotions are cut off, and therefore the emotions become morbid. But then, as already mentioned, the compatibilist still has the feelings of doing their best, which are associated to their idea of selection of the best option. So these feelings come to the forefront. These feelings compensate for the morbid emotions. So this will always cause exaggeration in doing their best, so to generate more feelings of doing their best, for their emotional survival.
Also it is quite apparent that there would be high sensitivity related to values, because the values take the proper place of emotions. Where in libertarian free will the emotions determine the result of the decision, in compatiblism the values determine the result.
So enter the compatibilist judge, with the morbid emotions, and the high sensitivity to values, who is desperate to exaggerate doing their best.
Then some rapist comes before the court. Everything proven. The emotional reaction is very formalized, standardized, because the judge has morbid emotions. So the attention shifts from emotional harm, to harm of values, because the judge is sensitive to values. At this point the victim is already forgotten about, because the victim stands for emotional harm.
So the judge enquires about the values of the perpetrator. The values in regards to treating women. And then the correction is to teach the perpetrator proper values. And then the perpetrator accepts the values, agreeing that he was mistaken. Not evil, because evil doesn’t really figure in compatibilism. Just an accident of having the wrong values, a big mistake. Also because of some psychological conditions causing the wrong values. And the perpetrator assures the judge he will do his best to be better. Together with a group of social workers, psychologists, everyone agrees it will be better. Lots of nice feelings of doing your best for everyone, except of course the victim. So then it would really be bothersome to have a severe punishment which only makes a big problem for the perpetrator to correct their values. That’s just a downer on these feelings of doing your best.
Then some hatespeech criminal comes before the court, everything proven. The hatespeech is a direct attack on values. The judge is stung by it, the judge feels the pain, because of the high sensitivity to values. The hate reminds the judge of their own morbid emotions, which nobody may find out about. And while the judge may send someone to correction to get the good values, that would still be very difficult in regards to freedom of opinion. So there won’t be any psychologists or social workers around helping the perpetrator to get the right values. Actually the judge would want to send the perpetrator to a re-education camp.
Most of that just seems like something you’ve invented tbh. You’re saying it with confidence but it really sounds like your imagination.
It is speculation yes, but it seems to work broadly.
I think what is most certain is that compatibilists will be more focused on the feelings of doing their best. That is something very logical on account of conceiving of choosing in terms of selection of options.