Comments by "TheEVEInspiration" (@TheEVEInspiration) on "On Free Will, Spirituality, & Artificial Intelligence (Pt. 2) | Sam Harris | ACADEMIA | Rubin Report" video.

If free will does not exist the way we usually tend to think about it, which i do not dispute, it has profound consequences. Ask the question why we keep violent people or ideological destructive people alive at all? And locking criminal people up that are just a witness of their own being, would serve no purpose other then to torture them (hence criminals get out of jail worse then they got in)! It would mean every serious criminal should be sentenced to death. Probably not the outcome Sam would expect, but it is a perfectly logical outcome.
3
acvarthered That only shows a clear lack of empathy with the victims and a personal urge to deny people can be really bad. As such the tendency is to wish it away and measures quickly looks harsh, even if just. The wish is the farther of the thought, more or less. Another phrase for it is common stupidity!
1
acvarthered Punishment is setting a new set of conditions and in severe crimes that is primarily to protect victims and society from the criminal. When learning of no free will results in assigning less punishment, society will be at greater risk. That subjects did not give weight to this side of the equation, shows they observe a sentence as a means to punish or take revenge on the criminal (like a child would view it). That can work as a deterrent for normal people, but not to protect society from real basket cases. As a result it means they have more empathy after learning a criminal could not help himself due to lack of free will. The other side of the equation is that they have less empathy for the victims and society as I stated. It apparently shows empathy only for the helpless witness in the criminal body and lowering punishment is an obvious way to protect this separate victim in the body of the criminal somewhat from society, instead of the other way around. Pretty screwed up if you ask me as we cannot separate both.
1
acvarthered I never argued such a thing. I put forward the question why we would keep violent people or ideological destructive people alive at all! Followed by what would be a logical thing to do with this knowledge in my opinion. One result from poorly articulated research conditions changes nothing in all of this. You are just arguing for the sake of arguing and when confronted with clear reason are crying red herring. You proved nothing and are just upset you did not get your way just by referencing some science experiment!
1