Free will, determinism and the criminal justice system

[stui magpie]

[David]

^ Much the same has been said about post-religious states, yet Australia and the Scandinavian countries are hardly hellish dystopias.

I would wager that absolute morality has caused infinitely more damage than moral relativism.

Most people would acknowledge that a more empathetic society would be a much better place to live in, and I believe that the link between empathy and rejection of free will is quite strong. Think about it: what are the biggest impediments to our ability to feel empathy for others? Self-righteousness, blame, contempt, arrogance, judgementalism: all of these are concepts that belief in free will is used to justify, and all of them are logically indefensible if free will is rejected. That doesn't mean that these reflexes would cease to exist if belief in free will were no longer mainstream, but it does mean that we wouldn't be able to justify them to ourselves, and that'd make for a huge difference. Consider the implications of the phrase "There but for the grace of God go I" being accepted as axiomatic — it's actually inevitable that we'd have a more empathetic society.

It's not all a one-way street. Much like superstition and Fear of God, I can't deny that guilt and shame can be useful tools for stopping us from doing harmful things and can also be a good means for reform as well*; still, it's equally true that guilt and shame are debilitating emotions that can cause a lot of damage to the quality of people's lives. There's a bit of robbing Peter to pay Paul about it, but I think I could argue that a guiltless society, on balance, would be a better one for its inhabitants. If guilt and shame are collateral damage in the move towards a more rational and empathetic society, then so be it.

* It's entirely possible that intelligent self-interest can fill this role more than adequately.