(untitled)

What is "fault"? When can we say that someone doing some desicion "consciously" and not a victim of circumstances and thus has to bear "responsibility" for ones actions? The so-called "responsibility" being suffering undesirable consequences for a subject in case of failing... If you think about it further chances are you'll reach same conclusion I did: that we are essentially all victims of circumstances and punishment is just a soulless act... I'd probably come up with an example of what I mean but I think I am not in a good state of mind to produce something really convincing and that is not soykaf so we'll just leave it like that for now, maybe my mind will conjure something later

>>63782 A proper example of this can be found both in the real world Anton Chekhov and in the potentially-real Jesus Christ, among many others. In Christ's story, he forgave everyone involved in his torture and execution, and every person before, during, or after his time, because they're human; imperfect creatures who can't really be blamed for succumbing to their emotions. Can a child truly be blamed for suffocating his infant brother, for he knows not of life and death? In Chekhov's life, he was born to an abusive drunk and an emotionally-absent mother. He was beaten relentlessly alongside his siblings, forced to work as a child in the Siberian cold in place of his lazy father, and subjected to a life that anyone would have full rights to crumble under. Chekhov loathed his father for a very long time. But, to make a long story short, he came to the conclusion that he couldn't truly blame his father. His father was also born to an abusive drunk, as was his, and so on. When a man, living in a desolate place with zero odds for education, knows only what he was taught, can he truly be blamed for his destructive tendencies? Maybe, maybe not. But it does cast doubt on the hatred felt for an abuser. Chekhov forgave his father, and he lived the rest of his life as a better man for it. Lainon, what you're thinking of here is forgiveness. Particularly, forgiveness based not on emotion or personal gain, but, instead, reason. It is the foundation of the most powerful religion the world has ever seen, just as it is the driving force behind some of the most noble people who have walked the Earth. Whether or not one respects the religion, or idolizes the men, forgiveness is a powerful force that brings great catharsis to all parties involved. After all, what people want most is to be understood, and forgiveness is merely understanding taken to its peak.

Fault has function, we punish people because it deters others from doing what they did. Whether they're truly responsible is not really an issue in my opinion.

>>63785 Damn, dude, what are you even talking about? God literally punishes people by sending them to a place they would burn for eternity

>>63803 please don't chime in on a subject you clearly don't even have surface level understanding of.

>>63803 I didn't mention the Christian God. I was talking about the man, separate from divinity, in the story of the Passion of Jesus. Y'know, the carpenter guy who was betrayed by one of his closest friends, tried on faulty charges, tortured in ways that should've outright killed him, forced to carry his own tool of execution through streets and up hills, spat on by people who could've - at any moment - stepped in and saved him, had nails driven through his hands and feet, stabbed by an uncaring and unassuming soldier from a foreign land, cried out in doubt and fear after a life of faith and servitude as to why his God would make him suffer like this, only to forgive everybody involved? Yeah, I was talking about the story of that guy, not the reality of Christianity or its God's apparent choice of punishment. It's possible to separate the morals and lessons from stories without buying into their legitimacy or surrounding lore.

Assignment of fault requires the assignee to have agency, and not all things do. Its not a rock's fault he falls to earth and my head happens to be in the way, nor is it a truck's fault if it barrels into my side. Perhaps not all humans have agency, either. Or not to the same degree. I think there's a certain sort of relatively healthy outlook which generally speaking just opperates with the thought that you alone are basically in control. If I get hit by a car, its my fault in almost all circumstances. Maybe I didn't check when crossing the street, maybe the light said pedestrians can go and so I went even though that one car wasn't braking fast or at all. From some perspective its the driver's fault, but on the other hand, my life is most precious to me alone, and I shouldn't trust anyone else to safeguard it. Would I forgive that driver ? maybe not, but he's just part of the world. A thing not exactly in my direct control. I don't forgive him anymore than I forgive a rock, and don't blame him anymore either.

>>63812 What if the driver forgot to do something that was in his control but due to extreme forgetfulness slipped away of his attention which led to car accident? Is it still "his fault" and he "deserves" to rot in prison? What good can it do to make him experience pain and regret more than he already has?

>>63818 still my fault for allowing someone untrustworth into a position where he will kill me by negligence. I'm not going to go sit in a hospital bed (if I survive) feeling bad about dumb schmucks, I'm going to think about the mistakes I made myself which put me in that situation. If I were the driver on the other hand, then sure its my fault for killing someone on accident, being neglectful and dumb, or driving at a time when I couldn't be trusted to do it compotently. But as the pedestrian that doesn't matter, he's dumb/distracted/whatever and its my problem to not let his mistakes kill me. The state probably ought to see it from sort of a different perspective, there's a behavior: reckless negligence, which ought to be punished and minimized. Maybe someone who would do that deserves some sort of punishment. The only peice of this puzzle which I as the pedestrian have any direct control over is my own actions, and thus when something bad happens it must be to those which I look for a solution first and most significantly, if indeed I look anywhere else at all. Driver was dumb, maybe doing something illegal. But it was my actions which put me, ultimately infront of his bumper. This is all assuming an accident of course, probably should think of it a little different when its intentional malice. Nevertheless, its always going to be MY PERSONAL ACTIONS which I control. Maybe its his fault for being a murderer, but it was my fault for being an acheivable victim. There's a saying that there's always more than 100% of blame to go around when something goes wrong. Others may have responsibility too, but victims always have a goodly share of it.

>>63812 >It's not rock's fault it falls and my head happens to be in the way Yes, but is it YOUR fault that you got hit by it? There's technically a way you could have avoided it and it is almost always within the realm of your human intelligence capabilities to think up... >If I get hit by car its my fault in almost all circumstances Well, I dont think it is >Maybe I didnt check when crossing Maybe your mind was preoccupied with something else? There is always a reason why you wouldnt or would do certain things and they are, id say, always kind if "external"... You didnt just "oh, ima not check and increase my chances of getting hit". Maybe you forgot to...

>>63826 >Maybe your mind was preoccupied with something else, maybe you forgot to yes, and that was a mistake, in this scenario perhaps a fatal one. The Pedestrian's mistake. His actions directly lead to him getting infront of a car that wasn't stopping. He generally would have had a chance to see that there was unusual danger and respond, yet he did not. Its his fault if he lets himself get hit at that point, just as much as its my fault if I slap my hand onto a nice sizzling pan and find then that I've gotten burned. Driver isn't blameless but ped. isnt either. >yes but is it your fault the rock hit you in the head ? Almost always yes to some degree. Generally the odds of rocks falling from the sky are pretty low, rock man most likely walked into an area of elevated rock danger and paid the price. He could have been more careful, he could have not gone there or gone there at a different time, or all manner of things. Rocks are predictable things, and this guy didn't aggregate the relevant info or make the right predictions, or didn't heed them. His fault. I do think there are some pretty bizzare and rare chances that are almost blameless. Maybe you're in a building and it gets hit by a falling airplane and kills you. Its happened. But even in places where its most likely to happen odds are very low. Difficult to get info on what is happening in time and difference of meters or less can be life and death, while the object involved is moving at many tens meters per second or more. Hard to blame someone who dies in that circumstance, reason being that crashing planes aren't predictable with limited time and information, and the event in question is a very low probability one just in general. Even still I think victim shares some blame, almost always something you could have done better.

>>63823 >But it was my actions which put me, ultimately infront of his bumper. If we apply this in *all* cases then literally going outside makes you at fault. We must consider what is considered sufficient caution on the part of the pedestrian and what are considered reasonable actions the pedestrian can take to avoid being hurt. If you do everything you reasonably could and still get hurt, its not your fault at all.

>>63827 >His actions directly led him to getting in front of a car that wasn't stopping But not his/her/theirs intentions though. Was it their (human being's, OP of the message they first appear in didnt specify gender) intention to be hit by a car? Again, you didn't say nothing about my argument about their mind being preoccupied with another thoughts or aimply being distracted or forgetful in nature, which practically isnt enough for society to get "fault" off their chest. >He could have been more careful, he could have not gone there or gone there at a different time, or all manner of things. Rocks are predictable things, and this guy didn't aggregate the relevant info or make the right predictions, or didn't heed them. His fault Have you ever thought of reasons why he "didn't aggregate enough info"? Maybe this was just impractical for him to literally fully emulate the whole situation in his brain taking into consideration every possible aspect of it including trajectory, laws of physics etc which requires to spend immense amounts of energy and emotional willpower. I think we are all essentially getting at a concept of free will here. Did you take their life circumstances into account? Maybe the guy was just too tired after a night shift to do all the nessecery calculations in his head (even if things were much less complicated than I wrote above). Again, they didnt just "decide" to be hit by a rock

>>63828 >If we apply this in *all* cases then literally going outside makes you at fault. no, getting hurt or acheiving undesired results makes you at fault. Frankly I'm perfectly ok with that. Its all risk management. Maybe you see someone on the train tracks about to get hit so you dive down onto them to hold them down. Thats a phenomenal risk to take, but I don't mind if you value the chance to save a guy higher than the risk to yourself. If you die though its your fault imho. >We must consider what is considered sufficient caution on the part of the pedestrian and what are considered reasonable actions the pedestrian can take to avoid being hurt. If you do everything you reasonably could and still get hurt, its not your fault at all I don't like this because it removes agency from you. Once you no longer can be blamed you no longer are a person but an object behaving according to your circumstances.

>>63830 >no, getting hurt or acheiving undesired results makes you at fault. This is just a silly assertion. >Once you no longer can be blamed you no longer are a person but an object behaving according to your circumstances. Its important to acknowledge that we are in fact physical objects and do not have control over every aspect of our existence. This is a necessary condition for existence. Whether or not you don't like it doesn't change the reality of the situation.

>>63829 alright ok. so you're walking through the city. you walk upto a crosswalk, light says go pedestrians, and you walk. Some bozo comes up at high speed and plows into you. Its not his fault cause he was distracted, worrying about his mother who's been more forgetfull lately and about whether that pizza he had for lunch wasnt just a bit too old, isnt sitting right in his stomach, and thinking about whether he should get more gas. Aint got no time for red lights. Its not you're fault cause you did your due dilligence, the light said pedestrians can cross and you didn't leave the crosswalk no sir not one inch. You weren't paying attention to oncomming cars cause its their responsability to stop when the light is red. And besides, you have other things to think about, like all the cool blinky lights on your telephone, not to mention you're just a little absent minded by nature. Aint got no time for mortal dangers. do I understand ur position ? seems like everyone is blameless. Maybe the government needs to mandate self driving cars or something for everyones saftey is that what I'm seeing?

You guys seem to be flailing around in a rather confused state in an area inhabited by various concepts, including culpability, liability, responsibility, fault, etc., in both moral and legal senses. You might benefit from taking in some writings that examine the distinctions. You may also wish to familiarize yourselves with terminology and concepts related to negligence, including types and degrees of negligence, factors of negligence, and defenses to charges of negligence. Some key words: Comparative negligence, contributory negligence, vicarious liability; ordinary negligence, gross negligence, willful/reckless/wanton negligence or conduct; reasonable care, assumption of risk; the reasonable-person standard; unavoidable accident; cause-in-fact, proximate cause; strict liability; mens rea, actus reus. Some of these will be academic material that may be examining possibilities rather than actual legal realities or ethical consensus. The point is not to give legal or moral advice, but only to provide a beginning framework for examining questions of culpability, etc. I trust you all know how to gain access to full journal articles if you want them. https://opentextbc.ca/ethicsinlawenforcement/chapter/moral-culpability-verses-legal-culpability/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culpability >"Culpability means, first and foremost, direct involvement in the wrongdoing, such as through participation or instruction", as compared with responsibility merely arising from "failure to supervise or to maintain adequate controls or ethical culture". >A person causes a result purposely if the result is his/her goal in doing the action that causes it, >A person causes a result knowingly if he/she knows that the result is virtually certain to occur from the action he/she undertakes, >A person causes a result recklessly if he/she is aware of and disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk of the result occurring from the action, and >A person causes a result negligently if there is a substantial and unjustifiable risk he/she is unaware of but should be aware of. >There is one more type of culpability, and that is strict liability. In strict liability crimes, the actor is responsible no matter what his mental state; if the result occurs, the actor is liable. An example is the felony murder rule: if the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that one commits a qualifying felony (see the article) during which death results, one is held strictly liable for murder and the prosecution does not have to prove any of the normal culpability requirements for murder. [ See preceding paragraph in the Wikipedia article, and https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/legal-standards-proof.html ] https://online.vwu.edu/news/criminal-justice/culpability/ https://academic.oup.com/book/39630/chapter-abstract/339584647?redirectedFrom=fulltext https://markmanson.net/responsibility-fault-fallacy >Most people equate being responsible for something with being at fault for something—and so they take responsibility for nothing in their lives. https://www.upcounsel.com/lectl-liability-without-fault-in-the-criminal-law-criminal-defense https://academic.oup.com/book/39317/chapter-abstract/338925997?redirectedFrom=fulltext >Narrow culpability is the elemental sense of mens rea, which provides the mental or subjective dimension of criminal wrongdoing. Broad culpability is the responsibility condition in virtue of which the agent’s wrongdoing is blameworthy and without which she would be excused. Inclusive culpability is the combination of wrongdoing and responsibility that together make the agent blameworthy and deserving of blame and punishment. Each kind of culpability plays an important role in a broadly retributive rationale for the criminal law that predicates blame and punishment on the fair opportunity to avoid wrongdoing. Different kinds of culpability align with attributability and accountability. Strict liability crimes that permit liability without culpability are rejected. https://academic.oup.com/book/27662/chapter-abstract/197779541?redirectedFrom=fulltext > As there are many considerations that bear on the duties that a person has, there are many considerations which bear on a person’s liability to be harmed.

>>63832 >everyone is blameless Yes, that is basically it. I know, sounds silly and even funny by today's standards but every mistake and every "wrong" action has some reason and thought behind it. I think the whole concept of "fault" is detrimental to our society. We shouldn't address people, we should instead address circumstances that have led to tragedy. It really is hard to explain how it all works in my head but ima try my best

>>63840 Thanks, but I think I have pretty firm grasp on that all >unavoidable accident I think this is the most interesting part here. At which point circumstances become severe enough of a factor contributing to the outcome that they are enough to "excuse" someone from "their fault" in a wrongdoing? One way or another a person always has their reasons and external causes that make them behave in a certain way. Take an example from one of the links you've posted: >For example, if you woke up one day and there was a newborn baby on your doorstep, it would not be your fault that baby was put there, but the baby would now be your responsibility. You would have to choose what to do. And whatever you ended up choosing (keeping it, getting rid of it, ignoring it, feeding it to your pet parrot), there would be problems associated with any of those choices and you would be responsible for those as well. Huh, so you are now "responsible" for this baby once you saw it, right? If it hadn't been for you knowing it was there the "responsibility" wouldn't have fallen on your shoulders right? If, say, someone left it and then someone else took it before you even had the chance to see it, it wouldn't be your fault if it gets hurt or killed ot lost? But it becomes "your fault" once you see it and acknowledge it is there and you have to take care of it. If the prosecution proves that you knew that the baby was there and yet you didn't help it then you can be held legally responsible if something happens to it, right? But what stops me from saying something like "you should have gone outside in case someone left an infant there". From society's commonly accepted standards you can't say that, however you can say you should've taken care of the baby once you saw it. Say you are in a difficult financial situation and struggling to make ends meet and you cant put the child for adoption either. All of that wouldn't excuse you in case something happens to this child. But are those any less of a reasons than whatever was the reason of you not going out the whole day?

>>63879 The whole point is that you can't have a responsibility to do something you're unaware of, and on the flipside, sometimes simply being aware of something gives you a responsibility, and sometimes you gain responsibilities without intending to. So: >But what stops me from saying something like "you should have gone outside in case someone left an infant there". Because it's an unreasonable demand to make, and seeing the child was what gave you the obligation to do something, not the child's mere existence. (although I'd still feel awful if an infant died on my doorstep).

>>63884 >Because it's an unreasonable demand to make I think its very resonable to expect someone to keep a constant eye on their house and its immediate surroundings. Its like letting someone come up behind you while walking and not notcing. Don't be careless. >can't have a responsibility to do something you're unaware of no but you can and do have a responsability to maintain awareness. That was my point in the example with the driver. A pedestrian can be doing 'everything right' and still kill himself through neglect of basic situational awareness, and if he does that then (imo) he shares a significant part of the responsability for his death. Likewise I'd say if the baby dies after sitting a day or two on your doorstep that is your fault because who the hell doesn't notice something on your doorstep. Maybe excusable if it is there for fewer 12 hours but even that's pushing it. Its not *only* your fault but it still is your fault.

>>63884 Say, you did actually see it and now you are responsible if something happens to it. Say its sick with some disease that requires you to constantly inject it with some kind of costly drug to prevent it from dying. You didnt do it, because you didn't have enough money to afford it. Are you still going to jail? Is thay your fault that you don't earn enough money to afford to save someone's life? Should you have earned more? Should you have found a better job? Technically (from society's perspective) you "let it die" didn't you. Who's going to take into account that you couldn't afford to maintain its life right?

>>63887 > A pedestrian can be doing 'everything right' and still kill himself through neglect of basic situational awareness A pedestrian can have plenty situational awareness, even *too much* situational awareness, and still get killed by a car. People have been killed by runaway cars while sitting in their home. >>63889 >Who's going to take into account that you couldn't afford to maintain its life right? idk, a jury? There are other things you could do in that situation besides buying the drug.

>>63900 Yeah, but I am still going to jail amn't I?

>>63905 can you find cases where someone went to jail over something at all analagous to this ? My quick search didnt turn up but I'm not sure. Now if you abandon the baby on someone's door there's definitly a chance you do. But getting it left on *your* door? doesn't seem to be the case as far as I can see.

>>63908 Not much of a good researcher. Never done something like this. Nobody teached me how to, pointless expecting me to know how to do such things properly

>>63916 You could have just said "no"

>>63919 I think I should explain the reason, because they might think its because there are no such cases and not because I am a bad researcher

>>63916 The theory as I understand it would be: there are social systems in place to help, in failing to use those social systems, you are negligent. Nobody holds a starving african mother responsible for throwing her baby into the bush when there is no infrastructure to support. Unfortunately "righteousness" and "justice" which are key in fault attribution are a luxury the privileged take for granted. Nature will not discriminate if you neglect, beat, or kill a child. Social groups do... that does not mean you can not be the "cause' of said effect, but "fault" has connotations of morality and legality which is socially constructed. See Maslow and Kohlberg. there is even some debate if woman see morality the same way men do, Kohlbergs pupil proposing a separate female moral heiarchy I had actually been avoiding this thread because i figured it would be a moral/legal/religious soykafslinging contest >>63840 Thank you for clarifying legality

I see guilt/fault as a spectrum ranging from the indisputable guilt to the simple accident were no one is to blame. If you go around town killing people just for the hell of it, you are almost undeniably at fault. If you don't check your tires pressure and hit a pedestrian because of that, you are still guilty of negligence but to a much smaller extent. If you get hit by a meteor while walking down the street, you're not at fault. It's possible to debate the "guiltiness" of an individual in any situation but it becomes increasingly absurd as we tend toward the extremity of the spectrum. >>63823 >but it was my fault for being an acheivable victim. From a moral point of view it's not your fault because you were diligent and you didn't commit any wrongdoings. But from a survival point of view you are indeed at fault because you've put yourself in a position in which you were vulnerable to the wrongdoings of others.

>>63923 >Thank you for clarifying legality To be totally clear, I'm neither suggesting that this question should be reduced to a legal debate nor advocating for this particular perspective on it. I use the legal framework only because it seems to me to the most useful and convenient example of codified morality that can readily be applied here. The point is not that I think these definitions and distinctions are universally correct and relevant, it's that I think this is the level of detail and nuance we should be ready to engage in to properly answer such a question, whatever the actual details are.

>>63925 >From a moral point of view it's not your fault because you were diligent and you didn't commit any wrongdoings. sure, but I think OP is mostly talking about casuality for what its worth. All victims of circumstance and all. Also there's an argument that you have a moral obligation to defend your own life, but thats another matter ehh. >>63921 I was the one who asked and I think its allright how you replied.

>>63923 >in failing Did you think that there is always a REASON why a person might act in a particular way in any situation? And it is rather easy to predict. I see this question as rather boiling down to freedom of will and "consciousness". Can't help but see the work of the brain rather as physical process happening according to laws of physics. Ye, I am completely aware that this is rather "edgy" understanding of the whole thing but as Ive mentioned, I cant see it another way

To illustrate what I mean lets see fundamental attribution error (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error). To put it short: whoever behaves like a jerk we see simply as "insufferable prick" while not knowing the full background (he might have had a quarrel with someone or in a difficult financial situation which may have affected his mood to the point it took only 1 word from you to make him seethe). We dont care, because it is seen as "irrelevant" by us for a reason why he behaves the way he does. We don't see him as "the guy who is upset about his difficult financial situation", we see him as "insufferable piece of soykaf who always attracts negativity and brings bad mood with him". We don't take into account that the combination of the situation he is currently in with his natural character's tendency to be melancholic and get upset rather easily has caused him to behave the way he does Ye, you got it right. My point still stands the way it used to: everyone is blameless and we should address circumstances rather than the person as "cause". The only good point Ive seen in this thread so far is from the guy saying that people getting punished for their actions or inaction ("neglect") deters other people from doing what they did. Well, what can I say to that *sigh*... I don't think it should carry on being this way. We should find a better way to do this. Reminder that ancient greeks thought that throwing ill baby from a mountain was the only way to ensure health of the overal human population. Can't say that it wasn't effective.

>>63953 >[we judge] while not knowing the full background (he might have had a quarrel with someone or in a difficult financial situation which may have affected his mood I think my main revulsion to your apparent position is just how utterly dehumanizing it is. You seem to seek to reduce people to basically just fate & circumstance. He's not just a prick, its basically impossible to be a prick; rather he's just a thing responding to various environmental conditions. People certainly do reflect their circumstances, but the degree to which you seem to see this goes so far as to almost the full erasure of personality and agency. Sometimes a prick is just a prick. At the same time it doesnt even feel like a complete application of the conclusions that would lead to, so I'm kinda just confused. I've definitly met people in awful financial circumstances who are kind and generous, people who are treated roughly and yet do not reflect it in any recognizeable fashion. And also inverted cases. Even if you want to deny free will you'd still have to acknowledge genetics, basic dispositions, et cetera. Unless you only ever interact with people for 5 minutes and then never again I dont see how you can fail to see this. There are nice people, and there are mean people. There are smart people and there are dumb people. And a nice person doesn't magically become mean because he got into a quarrel or got fired from his job. Maybe sometimes, and certainly people do change. But there are things that don't seem to change short of I don't know, maybe actual physical bullet through the brain type situations. >The only good point Ive seen in this thread so far is from the guy saying that people getting punished for their actions or inaction ("neglect") deters other people from doing what they did If that works then why doesn't punishing people for what they DO do work, too ? Frankly even if you're a pure being of circumstance as you seem to beleive, I'd say credible threat of punishment is part of that circumstance. Maybe youre gonna be nicer to people if you think that'll advance your causes, even if your financial state is rotten. So in a pure circumstance based world, punishments should be assumed to work. Maybe good to also consider other circumstances and control those too, but risk of punishment should change behavior. >Reminder that ancient greeks thought that throwing ill baby the way you end this however makes me rethink some of your positions, and perhaps you're not so insane as I thought, or maybe you're just inconsistent. For another way to think of many punishments is as eugenics, the removal of bad and undesierable elements from population. The goal is still the same: reduction of undesierable behaviors, but its with a much more long term sort of scope (as well as short term). Maybe you don't like people who become pricks just because they're in a financially rought spot, so you mark them, kill them, ruin them or otherwise remove them. Doesn't matter that it 'wasn't his fault'. Punishment is a tool which can be used to many ends.

>>63956 Off-topic: can someone pls explain me what the hell does the word "agency" mean? Specifically what it means in provided context. As a non-native english speaker I can't wrap my head around it. I mean, yes, before you even ask, I did google it but, you know, as silly as it may sound I got into "the complicated word meaning of which I don't know explained with more complicated words" situation. The only usage in sentences I'd seen before I created this thread is "3 letter agencies" or "federal agency"... But here its different right? Is it the ability to take responsibility for one's actions?

>>63971 For a most basic explanation hopefully no one will disagree with too hard on, agency is self control and free will. Rocks, NPCs, and paperclips don't have agency, they just exist and behave according to simple rules. People, and perhaps some organizations you can think as having agency because they originate actions and seem to have free will and choice.

>>63972 I know I know, stepping on a highly controversial ground here but this: don't human brains operate according to laws of physics? Isn't your character and thus all your reactions to specific situations determined by genetics and how your brain was formed? Ok, say, consciousness and free will are a real thing and they do exist (metaphysics, determinism yada yada all that stuff aside). Where do we draw a line between putting responsibility on it and charging the person with violation and... Well, excusing based on circumstances. For example, mentally ill people don't bear responsibility for their actions, because they are not well, culpable, I guess ( all those legal, semi-legal, moral and casual terms really confuse me, they're all synonyms and I dont really know which one to pick, it really does suck to have to put effort into learning something someone else knows already because they just happened to be born in a 1st world country)

>>63976 >don't human brains operate according to laws of physics of course they do. If we were to find for instance, that for some reason brains have no gravitational pull, that would not lead to the conclusion that brains have some strange powers that disobey the laws of physics, but rather that someone made some mistake and in fact the laws aren't what we thought they were. Saying that any given thing obeys 'the laws of physics' is a tautology, for the laws of physics are defined as that which every thing obeys. That being said we don't fully know the laws of physics, and we don't fully understand brains. It is possible that there are peculiar mysteries waiting to be unravled before they can be properly understood. There have been arguments that humans are better at certain types of math than seems reasonable considering current understandings of what should be possible, but all this sort of stuff is wildly speculative. If you trust modern physics perhaps you beleive in small particles with non deterministic behaviors, a concievable font whence to draw some sort of true agency, or at least unpredictability. It is possible brains make interesting uses of such particles. Possible but uncertain. At any rate, conventional chemistry, genetics, yadda yadda, certainly play some role. There are surely certain ways in which brains are predictable. At the end of the day, we can very accurately guess what say a projectile (a brain can be one) will do, and are able to predict and control them precisely enough to land them in narrow locations on the planets, for instance. Thus we can say we understand projectiles. We have a much more limited understanding of the finer workings brains, and of people. >For example, mentally ill people don't bear responsibility Unfortunately mentall illness is also a line that has to be drawn somewhere. You could just as well say that all criminals are mentally ill and therefore not culpable and so all crime is just down to some illness. On the otherhand you could use this as a justification to punish shoplifting with immediate executions so as to remove such defective persons from society. Its not their fault any more than it is the fault of a malformed nail that came from the factory bent. Still, into the bin with them both like any other trash. Imho part of the percieved worth of humans is their percieved personhood; some freedom of choice, some inner spark that sets them apart from other things. It is to this spark of Mankind which we all bear that one might extend mercy or kindness, and to which one also assigns blame (or extends thanks). If you go out and say this murderer is just a victim of circumstance you argue that he infact has no such spark and is basically no better than a dog or a chair. If your dog does something like that you should just kill him.

>>64027 While you can say determinism makes you a victim of circumstances or fate if you want to be oldschool its also precisely determinism that incentivizes punishment to influence peoples behavior. The true goal isnt justice but influencing people into desirable behavior. Justice is just something for the morons to believe in because it likewise reinforces your intention by installing an inner policeman in the morons you cant control otherwise.

>>64028 can you clarify who you're replying to the post you quote is out of this thread if its me ( >>64003 ) then see my bit about killing dogs.

>>63976 >>64003 Changes to mental health understanding and philosophy changed fault, crime, and punishment. Punishment was at one point an example for those seen as at fault. Then it changed to a correction of the flaws that put one at fault. In its current inception, saying "the evil/voices/demons"made me do it are more likely to get you thrown into a looney bin. See one flew over the cookoos nest. On the other hand, Mental health is often perceived very differently cross culturally, even going so far as to question who an individual is (Spirit/soul/mind/body).

>>63976 Consciousness and free will are completely independent things. For example, it may be that our computers are "self aware" in a sense but all their thoughts are created by us. How can we prove something similar isn't happening to us. IMHO consciousness is just the ability to process something serially, so a modern 8 core CPU would have 8 minds so to speak.

I think there exists a simple, pure answer: 1) The world is dictated by laws of physics (as far as we understand and experience). Said laws are absolute. Given a state of the world at any point, it is possible to predict all future states. Should you bring the randomness of something like radioactive decay into the equation, the outcome becomes increasingly random from a given state. 2) The brain, existing entirely within the physical is governed by laws of physics. Referring to point 1, given the state of the brain at any point, it is possible to calculate where it will be at any point in time. 3) The resulting conclusion is that free will as a concept rather than a feeling does not exist. 4) Should you take this further and consider the self to not exist either as I am inclined to believe (Too deep a rabbit hole), the world is a soup of continuous reaction and causation. At no point can concepts like blame or fault be concretely defined. Why? Because… 5) Blame and fault are human concepts that exists inside the conscious but have no basis in the material world. Everything with basis in the conscious first is an extension of power (Nietzsche) and can’t possibly be defined concretely. Not only is it too complex, but the interest of man lies not in finding its true definition, but rather in seeing how the definition may be bent and twisted to fit one’s higher needs. And trust me, the need to define blame is very, very low on the totem pole.

>>64049 >1) the world is dictated by absolute laws. Also random chance. Randomness increases with time >2) the brain is governed by these laws. Given its state at a given time, its possible to fully predict all future states. >3) therefore free will doesnt exist >4) logical conclusion is that no one exists and there are no selves >5) All these are things we've made up ourselves and we've got greater interests and responsabilities than figuring out things like blame and fault. ummwut m8 I'm sorry I know its not your fault you don't have free will and all and are really less than sleepwriting but if it is possible for fate to push you into slamming out a more logically coherent post I'd be much obliged (to her of course not to you but whatever).

>>64049 >Referring to point 1, given the state of the brain at any point, it is possible to calculate where it will be at any point in time. It is not possible to perform this calculation without knowing the *complete* brain state. It is not possible to have a complete brain state without modifying this state significantly. Therefore this calculation could not even in principle be carried out. >The resulting conclusion is that free will as a concept rather than a feeling does not exist. By what means do you reach this conclusion? The fact that the universe is deterministic does not preclude free will. Please refer to this helpful comic https://existentialcomics.com/comic/70 >At no point can concepts like blame or fault be concretely defined. >Blame and fault are human concepts that exists inside the conscious but have no basis in the material world. Why would the fact that a concept does not exist outside of the mind mean that it does not have basis in the material world? Furthermore, if something does not have basis in the material world, why does that mean it cannot be concretely defined? Heck, what is the difference between "material" and "non-material"?

>>64053 >pics The bearded guy is clearly stating that the ghost would only be free if it isn't affected by the laws of the universe(if it is it's own cause and effect), the other guy's answer to this is but a wordplay, his ghost is still a part of the universe and thus is just as determined by the cause, hence there is no difference between the ghost he's depicting and the body. Disregarding all of the above he then states that free will is a thing because emotions exist. Because emotions and feelings do not have cause I guess. >The fact that the universe is deterministic does not preclude free will. Interesting. Define free will then. >Why would the fact that a concept does not exist outside of the mind mean that it does not have basis in the material world? Clearly all even the most fantastic concepts are but reflections of the matter. The thing is that such concepts are reflections of relations and therefore only exist as a part of whole, to argue whether a part is free or not is to argue words. All of the stupid, mentally ill, stressed out, affected by substances, traumatised in their childhood, etc. are either just as guilty or not guilty as your average person if we assume freedom will to be an absolute boolean value.

>>64053 >It is not possible to perform this calculation without knowing the *complete* brain state. It is not possible to have a complete brain state without modifying this state significantly. Therefore this calculation could not even in principle be carried out. The trajectory of a bullet before it is fired doesn't change regardless of whether you know where exactly it will go or not. Sure, practically you can't calculate what someone will do, but that doesn't stop it from being predetermined. >By what means do you reach this conclusion? The fact that the universe is deterministic does not preclude free will. I think that conclusion depends on a lot of underlying metaphysics, a lot of which are wishful thinking and can't be proven or really even debated. I suppose if as you do, you view free will as a component of a singular universe then yes it must exist to some capacity. My argument I think was more that free will is a misnomer, a misleading term that really represents: -The way the physical component that you identify as yourself reacts to the rest of the world (material). -And the emotional response experienced in the conscious alongside the material response (non-material). I suppose my conceptualisation of all this is tied to my tendency to still view the world as a mind-body duality, even if that itself is a huge dilusion. >Why would the fact that a concept does not exist outside of the mind mean that it does not have basis in the material world? Furthermore, if something does not have basis in the material world, why does that mean it cannot be concretely defined? I suppose that was phrased poorly. What I really mean is, I believe such concepts are once again misleading names for what really is an expression of power. I'd still like to make the assumption that the material world is the only thing we share. Upon it we can create 'concrete' definitions, in a sense that they may stand on concepts not victim to turbulent desires and wills of our conscious non-materialistic experience. Concepts such as morality and free will are relative only to other non-materialistic concepts, which themselves are all servants of our needs and are constantly sacrificed to each other. Metal is always metal because of its physical makeup. What is morally correct constantly changes based on the desires of the conscious experience. Free will falls into the latter category.

>>64056 You could redefine free will to be the subset of causes that are "yours" because you identify with them.

>>64058 can you frame it in context of simulation vs. simulacra?

>>64058 You can, but that isn’t free will.

>>64063 I don't see why this question matters then. It doesn't bother me or change anything. It's like being bothered that an animation is really a bunch of still images. >>64062 No, I can't.

>>64064 >. It's like being bothered that an animation is really a bunch of still images. literally a representation perceived to have meaning, ergo: a simulation lmao

>>64065 I never studied philosophy. >>64064 I'll say this though, because I think it's interesting. If free will is defined that way, we still don't choose what we identify with. People are sinful, but they didn't choose to identify with sin. Therefore, if God made people not want to sin, changing what people identify with, we would have no less free will than we do now. There is no good reason for God to have orchestrated events in the way he did, if his goal was to give people "free will".

>>64066 The duality that lains seem to have fuarrrks everything up... it's all one. God allows man free will, to "choose" but the results of our choices are already known to him. Thus, everyone has free will, but everything is also predetermined cause-effect. You will choose to eat because you are hungry, or you will choose to fast because you want to loose weight. This is also one of the philosophical bases of the akashik records.

>>64067 >you will choose to eat because you are hungry, or you will choose to fast because you want to loose weight Why not remove the desire to sin? People want to sin, and they would sin a lot less if they had no desire to. How would removing a desire remove free will? There are many desires we could have, but do not.

>>64056 >the other guy's answer to this is but a wordplay, his ghost is still a part of the universe in what sense? That was never explicitly said and, as far as I can tell, never implicitly assumed either. >Disregarding all of the above he then states that free will is a thing because emotions exist. Because emotions and feelings do not have cause I guess. The entire point is that acausality is not necessary for something to exercise free will. >Interesting. Define free will then. A thing is exercising free will when it has intention to do something (so, we presume already that it has to have a mind) and then performs that action as a result of it having that intention. I do not define it as an innate property because clearly you can intend to do something which is impossible. Free will must refer to actual events which happen. >Clearly all even the most fantastic concepts are but reflections of the matter. Au contrare, I would say that matter is just another concept. >All of the stupid, mentally ill, stressed out, affected by substances, traumatised in their childhood, etc. are either just as guilty or not guilty as your average person if we assume freedom will to be an absolute boolean value. That's a bad assumption to make, although I think your comparison to an 'average person' is apt because an average person has cloudy judgement in most situations.

>>64069 >A thing is exercising free will when it has intention to do something (so, we presume already that it has to have a mind) and then performs that action as a result of it having that intention. Don't computers have free will then? It's given a task, and then performs that task. The only difference is the number of steps involved.

>>64070 do you think computers have minds capable of intention?

>>64071 Depends how you define intention. If intentions are a very complicated collection of tasks, computers could have them. Most would say though, that no matter what a computer can't have free will.

>>63923 >Nobody holds a starving african mother responsible for throwing her baby into the bush when there is no infrastructure to support. So why holding me responsible for a car accident "I caused" when I was distracted by my friend calling me and simultaneously me thinking it was something important that could've potentially gotten me in trouble for missing (say, my superiors were calling and they wouldn't care if I told them "I was driving" for an explanation/excuse) 1) is somehow "ok" whilst 2) isn't. How come? How are 2 different? A bit extreme example, but I guess you understood what I meant here. Tried my best to come up with something Now, if anyone was wondering: 1. Yes, I may be projecting, because I don't want to get in trouble for what I think is fundamentally unfair by how our society treats "fault" and "responsibility" and that is so deeply rooted in our brains we simply can not think of differently or deconstruct and see from a different angle 2. I DID NOT cause a car accident, I DID NOT kill anyone, I AM NOT in a debt slavery to some bank or another person. My financial situation for now atleast is more than stable and I am feeling to say the least ok. My wrongdoings are minor, still makes me wonder what could've happened if they were bigger. 3. Yes, I WANT to be excused from everything. That is a desire deep down everyone has, but doesn't really talk about. Because that is just how I act and I couldn't have acted the other way and I always have my reasons to do things the way I do them nobody wants to hear. Sounds too childish? Well, this soykaf won't go away as I age

>>64034 TBF, at some point in my life I found almost everyone "uncanny" for simply thinking different than me... Like for simply having different picture of the world in their heads that I considered inferior to that of mine they were less worthy and less "human" to me. Sounds a bit narcissistic, yes, but that was just the vibe I git from people... Like there are things they would never understand because they thought differently and at the same time I have a full grasp of what they will ever be able to think

God's will cannot be free because God is Whole and freedom implies the existence of the Other from which a Whole can or cannot be free. God's will cannot not be free either because that way God wouldn't be Whole. God cannot judge because a Whole without the Other cannot judge of itself of it's own Part. God cannot not judge because judging and being judged is a Part of Whole and God is Whole. >>64069 >In what sense? His ghost is still a Part of Whole and a Part is never truly free from the Whole. >Acausality is not necessary A rock thrown against the wind dreams it's free. >Intention Intentions are but effects of their causes. When's the point an organism becomes consciousless and looses freedom of will? Is dog's will free? Or molecule's? Atom's? >Matter is just another concept. Agreed, but we have got to name *it* somehow. >Assumptions I made The point was that when it comes to a classical definition of the word 'freedom', there's no middle ground. One is either free or not. But when we apply that concept to an absolute state, logic breaks down because, just the other lain said, it is a function of language and not a property of the essence. >>64064 >It's like being bothered that the animation is really a bunch of still images. This guy gets it.

>>64034 TBF, at some point in my life I found almost everyone "uncanny" for simply thinking different than me... Like for simply having different picture of the world in their heads that I considered inferior to that of mine they were less worthy and less "human" to me. Sounds a bit narcissistic, yes, but that was just the vibe I git from people... Like there are things they would never understand because they thought differently and at the same time I have a full grasp of what they will ever be able to think. Turns out it was a bit the other way around

>>64003 Existence of particles with non-deterministic bahaviour will change everything. Never heard of them before. Spoiler alert: not a professor of physics. >>64049 So, the argument here I have heard like 3 times in this thread is basically: if determinism is the case then punishment and bad things happening to people are just part of it all. Well, can't say that I haven't though about that. But thats basically as far as my thinking goes. Never managed to go any further

>>64075 >His ghost is still a Part of Whole His ghost was posited by Sanus as a hypothetical thing which is not part of a whole, but is an independent being. >>Acausality is not necessary >A rock thrown against the wind dreams it's free. Nice poetry. >Intentions are but effects of their causes. And? Would your will be more free if you could gain an intention that is not caused by your previous mind-state? If you could simply be compelled to do something without it being caused by your state of mind? That would be much more disturbing. >When's the point an organism becomes consciousless and looses freedom of will? That is a separate topic and not relevant to whether or not free will actually exists. Also, I made a point about using the term "exercising free will" instead of "having free will", because you can obviously want to do something but not be able to so it, or likewise you can do something without wanting to do it. Even beings such as humans which obviously possess the capacity to exercise free will under this definition, do not always " have free will"

>>64073 This was my point exactly, there is also an argument to be made that people are above the law, and that some people are more important than others, thus resulting in fault and consequence being downplayed. Imagine for a moment that you, wagechuck burgerfry got a call saying your shift changed, so you in a distracted driving moment hit a pedestrian. Now you are "at fault" for being distracted. Consider now that you are part of a presidential security detail and you receive word there is a threat against the president, and as you hurry to go to your job, you hit a pedestrian. This example is common with police breaking laws and ruining peoples lives. But they are the"good guys" and have immunity from consequence. I think fault and consequence go hand in hand, but they are not the same as responsibility. Overall, I think the English language lacks the ability to convey the true definition of fault. Morality is not only tied to personal obedience (to law), but also to how people hold one another responsible. Like some other lains said, it really deals with the average. which for most is a democratically assigned attribution of fault. This also means that not only is fault culturally relative, but also intimately tied to strict social and linguistic patterns that define someones perceptions of truth. This also means a Hierarchical role may influence fault (i.e. if someones social value results in the end justifying the means of their actions even with negative consequence).

>>64082 >hypothetical ghost that is independent It would only if it is not a part of the universe in which the body it controls exists at, otherwise it's control over the body becomes a function of the universe, being less then the universe itself it, just like the body it controls, becomes a Part of Whole and therefore a subject to it's will, granting that the freedom of Whole could not be less then a freedom of it's Part, the Part cannot be said to have absolute freedom. >Would it be more free? The 'more free' implies the freedom is a spectrum. You insist that a deterministic being is able to exercise free will if it is sentient and claim that freedom is not a boolean value, me asking you to define what makes sentience anything different to a computer, why does it grant it's subjects an ability to act free and where is the fine line between freedom and non freedom is not a separate topic. >wanting to do 'A man can do what he wants, but not want what he wants.'

>>64084 >The 'more free' implies the freedom is a spectrum. No it doesn't. Completely free is more free than not free at all. I do think that it is possible to both do something of your own free will and also be coerced, as per Sartre's notion of radical freedom. In this way, for all practical applications, it is more reasonable to consider freedom to be a spectrum. But in this discussion we have been considering abstract theoretical free will, not free will as it would actually apply to everyday life. If you believe otherwise, I beg of you to consider whether you actually treat everyone including yourself as a mindless automaton. >what makes sentience anything different to a computer >why does it grant it's subjects an ability to act free The notion of "free will" is meaningless if we do not suppose that there is some kind of will which could be free. I'm personally not convinced that consciousness and will are the same, and I have not actually claimed anywhere that sentience/consciousness is necessary to exercise free will. In fact it is my opinion that most human decisions, though arising from free will, are not arrived at through conscious thought and we are not consciously aware of most of our intentions. In any case, obviously humans have wills. I don't know or care if computers have wills for the purpose of this discussion, personally I am dubious. If, as some claim, a theory of free will must come to the conclusion that computers do not have free will, then I would say computers in fact do not have wills at all, at least right now. I have certainly never programmed a computer to will something to happen, I have only programmed it to do something.

>>64085 >obviously humans have wills "Will" is a name for the emotional impetus of possessors' actions. For a will to be "free", it does not necessarily depend on factors outside of possessors' control. A possessors' actions are controlled by their will. This is circular. People can't control their will, they are controlled by their will. Therefore, they cannot have "free" will.

>>64086 That's not what the word "will" means.

>>64087 >1 · the desire, inclination, or choice of a person or group ; 2 · the faculty of wishing, choosing, desiring, or intending. In this context, it's usually related to actions people perform. If you disagree, you define it . What's the point of debating something if you don't have a clear definition of what it is? What a lame response.

>>64087 >>64090 No really, what would you call the, "the emotional impetus for people's actions" then? What word would you use? Or do you think people don't act based on inclinations, or that inclinations aren't emotions? If it's the latter, you would be wrong. They fall under the umbrella of emotions.

if its free, that means you're the product. sometimes I wonder about this. Maybe God make us for purpose. Strange world, many problems, not all perfect happy but whatever, basically toy world. Free will exists for test or filter purpose. See what you do. maybe He needs us for something, we exist to Him in something like plants to breed, dogs or sheep. Even children, not easy to tell. Freewill isnt omnipotence, and perhaps He is wise and smart, knows what you will do even if you have it. No surprises, and He controls rest of world, too. As child sometimes parents work mysteriously, cruelly, but wise parents have designs & hopes. Wonder perhaps what our world actually looks like, perhaps we havent even hardly glimpsed it...

>>64091 >>64091 try "motivation" for the definition

>>64090 You listed off two definitions which are different from the one you used to make your (frankly nonsensical) argument.

>>64093 I don't believe there's a difference. You can have competing inclinations, but the one you choose is ultimately based on emotions. There's only the illusion of a separation. I don't think people have a "free will", but not "free motivation". >>64094 The definitions I listed are emotions which constitute what we call a "will". Sure, happiness isn't the "faculty to feel happiness". Will is already vaguely defined. Are our actions caused by inclinations, or the faculty to have inclinations? Why does it matter in this context? Will does not actually exist as a separate thing. This whole discussion is nonsensical because people are pretending otherwise.

>>64102 And to add onto this, the reason why it's "obvious" a computer can't have "free will", is because everything about it was designed. All the parameters of its "will" were either chosen or selected randomly. After it's "turned on", all of the computer's decisions are ultimately caused by external stimulus and its initial configuration, neither of which the computer has control over. Humans are no different, we just can't directly observe the building process.

Just found this article https://www.bostonreview.net/forum/barbara-fried-beyond-blame-moral-responsibility-philosophy-law/ Posting so I can read it later

>>64102 >The definitions I listed are emotions which constitute what we call a "will". Wishing or intending to do something is not emoting. I don't know what else to say about that. >Are our actions caused by inclinations, or the faculty to have inclinations? Our actions are caused by our internal state combined with external stimulus at any given time, like any other object. What differentiates a being from other objects is only that we have some part of our mind that has intentions and is capable, in many cases, of effecting them, in the sense that the state of the particular part of our mind that contains our intent determines a large part of our future actions, such as muscle movement or some kinds of thoughts. We call such actions " willful". Since most people associate this part of their mind with " will", and this will is surely "free" in the sense that under normal conditions the state of this will is fully determined by our own body and sense-data gathered from outside our body, therefore nobody is in control of it except us. This will could fail to be free if, for instance, we had been infected with some kind of mind controlling fungus. In this case a body which is not our own assumes control of our mind. >>64104 >After it's "turned on", all of the computer's decisions are ultimately caused by external stimulus and its initial configuration, neither of which the computer has control over. The only reason we say that the computer "has no control over its actions" is because there is nothing we identify as defining the computer's intent, or will, or whatever you want to call it since it appears we have some pedants here. There is nothing within the computer thst would be the implicit actor when you say the computer "has no control over itself". Suppose the computer had a consciousness in the same way that you or I have consciousness (whatever that means) and could tell you its thought process and its intentions. Would it obviously not have free will then?

You see, there's literally always some thing you "could have done yet you didn't". It seems like the real question is how far we can stretch the reasonable amounts of precautions and worrying ab.sth. (because you get punished by the law enforcement both for action and inaction)