2

I was reading an article recently that discussed the Justice Without Retribution Network. While I support their aims, it led me to question what it means to change the criminal justice system if you believe in hard determinism.

For me, it comes down to this: why would a hard determinist try to do anything based on that belief? The determinism seems to remove the choice in any of that process nullifying the "try".

On the other hand, a belief in a full clockwork universe just means I was always going to type this into StackExchange.

Improve this question
4
  • 2
    There's a recent post in this site asking from a similar view embracing hard determinism or necessitarianism. Indeed under such view there'll be inevitably some serious yet basic (logical) 'problems', at least on an apparent level...
    – Double Knot
    Commented Oct 19, 2023 at 23:23
  • 1
    Because hard determinism means that they are determined to attempt it.
    – Conifold
    Commented Oct 19, 2023 at 23:25
  • "Do, or don't do. No 'try'." You couldn't 'accept' hard determinism, or anything else. You couldn't reject anything either. You couldn't do, or not do... anything. You would comment about it, but not be able to do otherwise. Seems a bit daft.
    – Scott Rowe
    Commented Oct 20, 2023 at 0:14
  • idt hard determinism says there no-one tries to do anything, just that it makes no difference, as moral responsibility is missing.
    – user67675
    Commented Oct 20, 2023 at 5:46

6 Answers 6

Reset to default
2

If hard determinism is true, why choose to eat food?

Because I'm hungry and food seems to solve that problem. This is the case regardless of whether hard determinism is true.

What does that have to do with your question? Well, my point is this:

Whatever thoughts, desires, motivations and reasoning we have all seem to exist regardless of whether hard determinism is true.

I desire to know what's true, and share this knowledge with others (for a variety of reasons). This desire exists, and that leads me to act on it. It doesn't really matter whether or not that desire is an inevitable result of billions-plus years of existence.

Improve this answer
1
  • Basically: Buddhism. These sorts of questions lead exactly nowhere. We've known that for thousands of years if not more, and still we take the bait. I guess we really can't help it.
    – Scott Rowe
    Commented Oct 20, 2023 at 22:26
1

I think your objection is valid, in the sense that if everything is predetermined, whether you try to persuade others and the extent to which they care about your impassioned arguments is predetermined too. Clockwork judges will sentence clockwork miscreants with a clockwork sense of retribution unless and until the clockwork society which they serve compels them to do otherwise. There is a related point that even if all criminals are clockwork, that does not make them any less undesirable to have on the loose. If I had some kind of mechanical device that malfunctioned in a dangerous way that could not be repaired, I would send it for recycling. I would not say never mind, it can't help itself.

Improve this answer
1
  • ohhh... cassandra!
    – user67675
    Commented Oct 20, 2023 at 5:45
0

We may want many things, depsite the fact a key ingredient of moral responsibility is missing. Indeed, we may even try to be moral if we are beyond 'responsibility'.

So the premise is just very confusing.

I often wonder if people who take to hard determinism just like the idea of being hard wired to behave how they do, similar to the thrill of saying I was born this way. This is just harmless conjecture, similar to the appeal that no-one really believes in solipsism etc..

Improve this answer
2
  • So you're suggesting that hard determinism may preclude moral responsibility, which is questionable, but also a fallacious appeal to consequences. Then you're suggesting that hard determinists appeal to the same fallacy, which seems a lot like an ad hominem to dismiss hard determinism (attacking someone's character instead of their arguments). It's also assuming the worst of people, that they're intellectually and morally corrupt, which may not be explicitly fallacious, but it's rude and extremely detrimental to constructive discourse.
    – NotThatGuy
    Commented Oct 20, 2023 at 9:15
  • i think you misunderstood @NotThatGuy too much to reply to all of it, but while hard determinism is often defined as amounting to a case against moral responsibility, i don't mean that as an argument. attacking psychological motives/character may be light, but it's not "rude" and anyway so what if there's no moral responsibility ;)
    – user67675
    Commented Oct 20, 2023 at 9:44
0

If Bob persuades Alice that the Earth is round, then Bob's actions -- speaking, showing pictures, performing demonstrations and so on -- are part of the causal forces that effected the change in Alice's mental state.

If you're willing to look at this in terms of possible worlds... Although within this particular world the outcome that "Alice is persuaded" is determined, in other possible worlds where Bob had not performed those actions that version of Alice would not have been persuaded.

Improve this answer
0

So with hard determinism a bank robber or rapist might argue: “It’s not my fault that I robbed the bank or raped the woman, I had no choice, so I shouldn’t go to jail for it”.

The counter argument is “Sorry mate but putting you into jail is not our fault; we had no choice”.

Improve this answer
4
  • That's a really bad counter-argument. You can only justify a past action, not a future action, with an appeal to lacking free will (and that would be as-a-matter-of-fact, not an intent-based justification). Otherwise, you're deciding to do something based on your consideration of whether you have free will, which would serve as a really poor justification for one's actions. If "I have no choice" is the best argument you have for throwing someone in prison (and not future harm they may cause, rehabilitation, deterrence, etc.), then I can only hope you never have the power to do that.
    – NotThatGuy
    Commented Oct 20, 2023 at 8:55
  • 1
    @NotThatGuy I think the response is totally appropriate in the context. If no one has agency, then no one has agency. The whole point is that there is no decision to do anything, ever. There are plenty of logical reasons why you could justify punishing someone, but if their defense is that the world is deterministic and they had no choice, then the person punishing them is equally justified to use that as a reason for punishment. It's not necessarily the best argument, but I'd say it's just as good as anyone using determinism as defense.
    – JMac
    Commented Oct 20, 2023 at 12:52
  • @JMac The question relates to "what it means to change the criminal justice system if you believe in hard determinism". If this is indeed intended to rebut determinism used as an actual defense, then it's just an egregious strawman of what's actually being discussed. Even in that case, the answer would still be proposing a justice system where you can strip someone of their freedom for a bad reason regardless of their crime, as long as they have a bad reason for having done what they did, which doesn't get anywhere close to any idea of justice that I can conceive of.
    – NotThatGuy
    Commented Oct 20, 2023 at 14:03
  • @JMac If the answer is intended to address how accepting determinism would affect the justice system, as asked, then it's indeed just be presenting a very poor justification for one's actions. You can't appeal to determinism to justify your actions, because in doing so, you're making a choice (deterministic or not) to use it as a justification (while attempting to argue you have no choice). It's self-refuting as a justification. If the intent were to respond to the question as asked, however, it would be very misleadingly phrased as a defence, and one might suspect that was intentionally done.
    – NotThatGuy
    Commented Oct 20, 2023 at 14:03
-2

Determinism is not a belief or a theory. Determinism is only an idea of an imaginary set of conditions very different from reality.Determinism makes no claims and explains nothing about reality.

Treating determinism as if it were a belief or a theory (=applying determinism to reality) is a serious category error that leads to all kinds of absurdities like the one you pointed out.

You cannot accept determinism (hard or soft). Under determinism there are no attempts, persuasion or beliefs. No you, no others.

Improve this answer
1

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .