Quote:
Originally Posted by Lenneth4
Criminals saving the city...
|
Not quite criminals or they would have been literally liquidated by now. Rather, they are "latent criminals" (that is, potential criminals).
This link is helpful for elucidating the basis of my thoughts on free will versus determinism:
Free Will, by Sam Harris.
Quote:
Harris prosecutes his orderly case by explaining what he sees as the illogic of our belief in free will, and the recent findings that have undermined that belief.
Compatibilists believe that "a person is free as long as he is free from any outer or inner compulsions", Harris writes, and they "have produced a vast literature in an effort" to salvage free will. "More than in any other area of academic philosophy, the result resembles theology," he continues, consigning it to what one assumes is, for him, the intellectual sub-basement.
Harris claims that doing so does not entail the end of morality, the idea of criminality and codes of ethical behavior. "Many people worry that free will is a necessary illusion," he says. "It is surely conceivable that knowing (or emphasising) certain truths about the human mind could have unfortunate psychological and/or cultural consequences." But it need not. We can still condemn "the conscious intention to do harm", he says, and he goes on to sketch a system of social and judicial evaluations that can lead to making valid moral judgments about people without invoking their wills.
"Once we recognise that even the most terrifying predators are, in a very real sense, unlucky to be who they are, the logic of hating (as opposed to fearing) them begins to unravel," says Harris.
|
I smell the beginning of the Psycho-Pass system in the above...
The point is simple. Abandoning the illusion of free will does not absolve us from the need to be responsible for our actions. More importantly, it forces us to confront the reality of what actually causes us to behave in any one way. In other words, it forces us to be fully aware of our biology, and to take responsibility for physical or psychological conditions that may predispose us to harmful, anti-social behaviour.
As this episode demonstrates, there are ample means for any well-adjusted individual to take complete control on his or her biology. Helpful drones advise people on the correct calorie intake, and also tell people to take medications to prevent mental/psychological contamination by the environment or other people. There is also ample opportunity, thanks to holographic technology, to create just the right kind of environment that would make any individual happy. Is it not reasonable therefore to assume that anyone who refuses to take such prescriptive measures is on the verge of criminal behaviour, and therefore requires tougher measures to make sure he or she stays in line?