Free will is an illusion and thus choices don't exist.
1) People act according to past experience, environment and internal biology. 2) People environment also consist of the knowledge that "For any given situation there are many options and if one looks hard and tries one may choose an appropiate response". If the society emphasize on this aspect a person might be more willing to make a "choice". Of course not everyone will respond the same way to this knowledge.
1) doesn't imply that there is no "choice" and 2) doesn't imply that we are not "programmed" to behave in certain ways. Actually it might be that 2) is helping us to "program" people in certain way.
In the context of "crime and punishment", as we get better at 2) or someother scientific development we can reduce the need for "punishment".
The best analogy I could think of explaining the above language play on mind is following. Say you are training a new chess player to improve the game. You can say one of the two things: 1) For a given board position there are limited options. 2) For a given board position there are many options.
While both being true on thinking deeply they can have different effect on the person. It also matters what we emphasize. For a person thinking less 2) may be better thing to emphasize. For a person thinking lot 1) may be better to emphasize.
Punishment is the cruelest and most dehumanizing thing in this world by mankind. I view "original sin" being born into humankind "assuming free will" is correct. The barbaric justification for punishment is we will construct a deterrent for other humans. Yet, it's ignoring how we are punishing a person who had no control by "the universe not favoring the person" and resulting in others "being favored by the universe" from punishing the person resulting in deterrent to others. The whole thing is madness because it's the system that is flawed not the individual.
Assuming people can admit and learn from their mistakes means you can focus on rehabilitation and treat them with dignity.
I agree that the idea of "free will" might have been exaggerated too much especially in the US tradition, and I think people here generally agree. But taking a position of complete denial is likely not sound either. No need replying to everybody trying to defend your point. That in itself is a bit weak.
Basically the gist of it is whatever is destined will occur. However long until the social norms adjust for people to understand & see the illusion of today. How the belief is a substantial impact in how society functions but doesn’t even have any backing such as from science/reason. It’s similar to how the times are shifting of belief towards a god existing and how life must be played out from text associated with the belief. I even compare it to when humans all believed the world is flat. The possibility exists of the time to never come where the majority realizes free will is an illusion but I think contrary because I can understand from my experiences the positives. I can also imagine benefits from the realization of the majority understanding it and how the majority would need to function to still keep humanity as the highest regard.
You cannot take the stance that an illusion is how people in society needs to live under and seem rational to me. Similar to the stance of writing it as “in complete denial” and assuming likelihood. The topics on hacker news that have something to do with free will belief are my favorite because
I enjoy replying to everyone. It was destined for me and with others that reply. The main difference between me & others is probably how I have positive emotions towards the understanding because it made me able to not break in a very low time.
If you have a system that produces defects, you could continuously scrap them, but you could also just fix the system so it doesn't produce defects.
Big if true!
First, the argument is that if people do not have free will, they have no moral worth, yet society has moral worth. But no reason is given why society, composed of individuals rendered worthless, isn't also rendered worthless.
Secondarily, learning doesn't require free will, as empirally demonstrated by our pitiful machines today.
You have to state your axioms up front, and frankly the "news" of no free will is the greatest carte blanche to redesign morality anyways.