/lit/ - Literature

>>14267237
Because as a conscious human you can project yourself into the future psychologically. If you're too fucking stupid to not take actions that will have consequences for yourself and others that persist from a given moment onwards, why should you be spared?

>>14267250
But that's what past self did. Why should present self be beaten up for retarded decision of the past ? They are separated by time and space, they can have different mental state, different disposition, different information etc.

>>14267272
If a person can't be judged for the past then what can they be judged for? If your last behavior predicts future behavior then can't we assume they'll just make the same mistakes?

Self growth and what not does happen and people can/do change, but that's not too common. Most people are the same forever, or they get much worse than what they are currently.

If you do something you know or saw as wrong then you can snuff that out to avoid it happening again and getting caught or feeling bad. But regardless you should be held accountable for your actions unless when you goofed up happened a long time ago.

time is one continuous line of events. if you looked from God's perspective (outside time/space) you'd see one single thing, The History of the Universe, like you see an object here on earth.

>>14267237
"Punishment" is a chimpanzee-level idea.
The goal is to prevent future harmful actions. Destructive behavior in the past indicates a destructive prior mental state. To the best of our ability, we should curtail or diminish the reoccurence of such behavior - either through mental reformation or simple restraint of the brain in question. That's what wisdom and empathy dictate.

>>14267420
> If your last behavior predicts future behavior then can't we assume they'll just make the same mistakes ?
Prediction is different than moral responsibility. I'm talking about moral responsibility.

> But regardless you should be held accountable for your actions unless when you goofed up happened a long time ago.
So very hand wavy

>>14267540
Ok, I trust your divine knowledge of time, but what does that imply and why ?

read locke

>>14267541
Your system would let rapists and murderer free if they can demonstrate that they are not in the same mental state to do that again. Instead of judge and jury, you'll have psychologist, neurologist and department of minority report. There's also no moral content in it, since it would justify putting people in jail if there are data to indicate people of that demographic and income level is more likely to enter the path of crime later.

>>14267621
It's not divine knowledge, it's logic + premisse (God created the Universe). implies that everything is connected, that's why everything matters. from our perspective, we have free will. we don't have free will from God's pov. but we don't have influence in that. so we have to act with will and understand that everything is beneath whatever God wants.

>>14267237
You’re punished to help prevent future crime, either by locking you up in jail or by instilling fear into you so that you won’t commit the crime again. This should be obvious.

>>14267646
> read Wikipedia
What part and why ?

>>14267651
>Your system would let rapists and murderer free if they can demonstrate that they are not in the same mental state to do that again
No because this would not deter crimes if the punishments were not carried out. So regardless of what the criminals think, they must still do their time. Otherwise, everyone would do whatever they wanted and start crying once they got caught and get off free.

>>14267653
> I have no free will but I am going to pretend I do to make everything alright
What ?

>>14267651
>since it would justify putting people in jail if there are data to indicate people of that demographic and income level is more likely to enter the path of crime later.
That does not follow at all and no one implied that. Strawman

>>14267659
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-personal-identity/

here you go brainlet

>>14267658
>>14267670
You are describing it in terms of personal and social benefit, holding people responsible for what you personally/socially find beneficial (without the de-ontological 'moral' part, there's no way to justly agree on what those terms of benefit suppose to mean). I'm talking about moral responsibility, which is blaming or acting on someone because they deserve it. Deterrence is about changing future outcome, moral responsibility is about giving people what they deserve for past action.

>>14267685
Deterrence is about future, not past. It's all about prediction, not desert.

>>14267720
>Deterrence is about changing future outcome, moral responsibility is about giving people what they deserve for past action.
What makes you think there’s a significant difference? Tell me this: why does someone “deserve” to be punished for a crime? Why do you feel the need to inflict harm upon someone because of what they did? How can you come up with any better reason than that the punishment creates a safer environment for you in the future?

>>14267736
Deterrence is not the same as prevention. We could surely prevent a lot of crime by killing all niggers, but that would be difficult to accomplish, so instead we try to deter them by creating legal punishments for crimes.

>>14267746
> Why do you feel the need to inflict harm upon someone because of what they did ?

I don't. My default position is that the whole concept of moral responsibility is bs (but not morality). But so is deterrence, but worse. It not only punishes people for past, but also allow the possibility of holding responsible for future crime. There's no moral content in it, you are doing things to people because it benefits you, not because it is the right/just/moral thing to do.

'good' and 'bad' are subjective, so why punish crime lmao.

>>14267754
You literally just described prevention.

>>14267786
>you are doing things to people because it benefits you, not because it is the right/just/moral thing to do.
What’s the difference? Can you elaborate on what you mean by “right” without going in circles?

>>14267797
Deterrence is a special type of prevention. Putting people in jail before they commit a crime is prevention, but not deference

>>14267705
> the sameness of rational Being: And as far as this consciousness can be extended backwards to any past Action or Thought, so far reaches the Identity of that Person; it is the same self now it was then; and ‘tis by the same self with this present one that now reflects on it, that that Action was done. (L-N 2.27.9)

hurr durr, I remember myself as a child, so I have the same mental states as the child. Is this what you were talking about ?

>>14267803
De-ontological ethics does not depend on arbitrary conception of personal or societal benefit.

>>14267809
Ok, still about the future though, not about the past.

>>14267679
I do in my dimension. If I dont do anything, nothing will happen. Action and consequence. But whatever I decided its what always would be. Im powerless in the grand scheme, but not in my present existence.

>>14267835
Then how are the rules derived? Do you think it’s a coincidence that following an ethical system that proclaims to not concern itself with consequences will actually yield good results? What a self-deception! And why follow the rules at all, if not for the consequences?

>>14267861
Read this: https://earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/kant1785.pdf

>>14267850
So you do believe you have no free will but you are practicing some weird virtue ethics of believing you do have free will.

>>14267888
>What makes a good will good? It isn’t what it brings about, its usefulness in achieving some intended end. Rather, good will is good because of how it wills—i.e. it is good in itself.
Nonsense. At no point does he even define what he means by “good.” How is this guy famous again?

>>14267912
Literally the first line in the chapter....

>>14267923
Oh, then what is his definition, then? I don’t see one. However, I do see that he seems to use the words “bad” and “harmful” in the same context, implying that “good” is a synonym for “beneficial,” but I’m sure he wasn’t doing this on purpose and would probably disagree. But it’s still the case that his whole view rests on a thin cloud of deception, circular, unbased nonsense.

>>14267237
Things are the way they are now is because of what I did.I then should get they out come of it. For good or bad.

>>14267923
Also, what in the world—or out of it!— does he mean by good-in-itself?

>>14267936
Read the thing first. There's shit ton of literature on this.

>>14267962
What good is it to read nonsense? He’s only a philosopher superficially. He’s over educated, just like Mill

>>14267237
Free Will is a lie.

You are your past, present and future. It is thus right to be punished for what you did.