Discussion Are people really guilty of what they do?

[Vivir_O_No]

I think this discussion is about free will versus determinism, but I'll try to make my point clear. When I look at the world and see some people doing bad things, I wonder if they're truly guilty of what they do. I mean, your genetics and environment (life experiences) will shape your personality to a certain extent, but also the way you behave. So, in this line of thinking, when somebody does something wrong, should we not blame their environment and genetics that shape how they will behave in certain situations? Can we really blame them if they don't have a strong will to resist their conditioning? What if their genes and environment shape them in a way where they can't control themselves?

But if we blame their genetics and environment, shouldn't we blame those and nature itself that created the respective environment, but also their fathers who gave them their genes? If we continue with this reasoning, we see that everything is caused by something else, but this 'else' is also caused by something else. If we continue like this, we end up with the first cause of all. Some people call it God, the big bang, or whatever, but wouldn't this mean then that if we should blame something, it should be whatever gave origin to the universe?

 

[Slow_Farewell]

interesting take.
My take? well, this line:

Can we really blame them if they don't have a strong will to resist their conditioning?

pretty much places me squarely in the being a person accountable side of things. if the person had no will at all it might be a different story, but having one, no matter how little, makes all the difference.

PS- the way you posted it is really really good, showing two sides of it in such a way that presents both negatives equally. really really good.

 

[Homo erectus]

I think there are free wills and they are competing for reality, maybe like quantum probabilities competing to be observed. A person is only a way of abstracting a bunch of free wills. There are conflicting wills in a person. We, the society, want to punish the bad people, because some other wills, collectively as society, want to push reality in some directions they want.

 

[Scythe]

I believe both the person commiting the crime and the cause that made them commit the crime is at fault. For example, if a bully victim killed their bully, while personally I don't think they should be punished. The law and some people think they should, but they will also agree that their hand was forced and the bully was at fault as well.
It's like suicide, it is our choice, except we're not taking it out on other things.
As for genes, if you mean things like anger issues/mental disorders, if the person is completely deranged then I would say it's not their fault. I believe in every other circunstance, they have some kind of choice.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I think sometimes when you learn about what people went through themselves, it feels less surprising that they ended up doing something criminal. I think it's perfectly fair to have sympathy for anyone who has had a tough life.

I'd say most people realise when they are committing a crime though. I suppose it depends on what the crime is and how much it hurts other people as to how I personally feel about it/them.

Stealing some food because you're starving seems fair enough to me. Knowingly defrauding or stealing from someone when there are other job options out there isn't so forgiveable.

I feel awful for people who have say peadophillic interests or strong drives to rape or hurt others. Those crimes decimate lives though. I can't believe it doesn't run through their heads that acting on it is wrong. They know it's wrong in fact because they will usually try and do these things in secret and try to cover their actions up. That alone is an a knowledgement that they shouldn't be doing what they're contemplating. That alone suggests competency to me. If someone was really that out of control- they wouldn't be able to resist acting on their desires in the open.

Besides though- at the end of the day, whether you want to see them as a victim also- some people turn out to be proven risks to society. Some will constantly reoffend if/when they are set free. So- either way- they need to be kept away from the rest of society to protect them.

It's kind of shocking (to me) when you hear about serial killers who have already served terms for murder. I know people can't be held in jail forever always but yeah- when you have a whole string of violent deaths following a previous violent murder, you do think- why did they think they were safe to release?

Whether it's their 'fault' or not- these people cause tremendous pain to others. In the UK, one of our most shocking cases was that of the assault and murder of the toddler James Bulger by two other 10 year old boys. It was a horrific crime that stunned the country. One of the perpetrators is 41 now and back in prison after indecent images of children were found on his computer. So- he's still hurting children. Why he wasn't being monitored more closely anyway, I have no idea. Wherever you want to lay the blame- people that commit serious crime and go on to reoffend are still hurting people- seriously. And ultimately- they could well be entirely innocent victims. So- whoever is to blame- they surely need protecting.

As to whether you can rehibilitate people- I don't honestly know. Maybe some you can. Some are clever though- sociopaths, psychopaths can manipulate people to believe they have changed so they get released in order to reoffend. Whoever's 'fault' it is- it's still the same problem- what do you do with them? Ideally, you stop them from becoming them in the first place of course but how?

But- I agree- it's important to try and work out where the fault/problem really lies in the hopes we can reduce these acts. The same goes for things like terrorism. It's all too easy to just blame someone for becomming an extremist. Why were they drawn towards that in the first place? Was it because they felt ostracised? Was it because they felt wronged? If we don't try and work out why people turn to crime, we have no hope of trying to prevent more people doing it in future.

 

[binturong]

I've been thinking about this for a long time. At this point, determinism seems like a plausible version. This makes it easier to relate to yourself, people and life in general, but it deprives life of a significant share of romanticism. And there are still many moral dilemmas, criminals being one of them.
I have a lot of thoughts on this topic, but I'm afraid the translator program is not suitable for such philosophical discussions, and neither am I, my brain is often glitchy, I confuse terms, and may be misunderstood.

 

[cold_severance]

everything people do is always influenced by outside factors, good or bad or neutral, whatever. so the influence of genes or environment is irrelevant, since they are in every action of every person. idk why you think guilt for these people is in question. its more like whether its fair or not or their actions are understandable or not.