|
Judgments of law are made on effects, which result from choices. If there was no causality then moral judgments could not exist. No one could be held responsible if there was no cause to an effect. No one could be held responsible if all effects were based on random causes. For we cannot punish some one for making a random action they have no control over.
When we judge an individual with a moral crime we are presuming that they were the first link in causal chain. But if something does not have a cause then it is a random event. Consequently we either deal with a caused or a random even. Defense lawyers do this all the time, they make arguments that either their clients were traumatized or forced into an unscrupulous act or that their clients were insane and hence had no control over the choices made. Causality plays a very large role in laws and judgments.
The problem lies in the fact that when disassembled, even the worst human choices are the result of causality (or posibly a random event) and freewill is nowhere to be found. Therefore there is no such thing that would make some one culpable for any action.
So I believe that your inference (line 3) is false asaris.
|