|
The conundrum that Frankfurt proposes (and later, Striker) is that of being a determined agent yet still exercising free-will, which is the reason I believe we've structured our legal system in the way that we have. If we are to allow that an entity can be determined, we can still not conclusively say that their actions weren't the result of free will. A defense of criminal insanity, for example, proves nothing about the defendant's state of free will.
Unfortunately, you could be in a determined system to murder (murderous insanity) and yet murder simply out of free-will and not the determination of the insanity. Another example would be that of a man holding a gun to your head, forcing you to kill other people. In this situation, it could be argued that you're a determined entity and not one exercising free will -- but what if you wanted to kill people, but felt it was societally unacceptable? The determinant in this case is just a handy excuse that you were determined, and not acting out of free will. Our legal system would likely pardon or lessen your sentence with a gun-to-my-head defense, even without knowing if you would have murdered those people otherwise. I think its unfortunate, but it's the only equitable way in which we can dispense justice.
__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel
|