jase1@uniserve.com On Sun, 1 Mar 1998 Wrote;
>In a determinsitic view of reality, deterrence is ineffective
>for people who are not possessed of free will. They cannot be
>'deterred' from committing crimes.
Just the opposite is true. If there are reasons for a person's actions and
then you change those causes, such as passing a law to punish wrongdoers,
then you change his actions. On the other hand, if a person's actions had no
causes then nothing you did could change him because his behavior would be
random.
>Well, are you a determinist, or aren't you?
I am not. Quantum Mechanics has shown that some things can happen for no
reason, that is, they are truly random, I just don't think randomness has
anything to do with free will.
>You say that you believe in free will, and this is not a
>deterministic idea... what's the scoop?
Free Will means being unable to accurately predict what you will do until you
actually do it, this is perfectly consistent with determinism.
>libertarianism tends to deny causality
Never heard the word used that way before.
>I do not believe (as you seem to) that because a decision has a
>causality, that it is then an 'un-free' decision.
I don't believe it either. Freedom means not knowing what I'll do but always
doing what I want. I consider it a compliment not an insult if somebody tells
me there are reasons I want the things that I do.
>What is incompatible with free will is not causation, but compulsion.
I agree, compulsion means having no freedom, and that means having no choice,
and that means doing what you don't want to do.
John K Clark johnkc@well.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.i
iQCzAgUBNPsai303wfSpid95AQGH+gTwhkv5QYw2Wto0Dzljep5a5VWJ9vu+pPsP
NA3c3C2RhvxYS7nGHAaFV99fKj4FYTc+K4PdK4w0WGP0oI+d6ITqvJMrunhCf6Zz
XEyjca35mI3MWZAOLezz2+hu9wUS2OSs0/mmt7E3qVKXjuRx4M1jpfySHzb0+Y7z
OpvsBfUQ4PiIR5gJu6HJK4CKAoVIZC7yQ6TDZHSEiNAVs/HGi5k=
=3GBo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----