Specificaly this form:
There is no way to equally judge another human being or bring back what the violation has caused equally. The attempt will lead to mistakes and cruelty. More insidious is the notion someone can bring justice. I bring this up because the smart men and women I know (asked 40) all agreed this is why they still believe in the religion they believe in. Some cited fear of death as number 2 but all said they believe there has to be justice from higher power ultimatey. And that this is the only solace they have in this world. They believe someone who took so much life, like a Dahmer, would have to be judged by something eternal. I said someone in war may take 100's of lives but this is judged justice because they did it under orders or for a "just" cause.
Justice does seem to be hard wired instinctual.Most social mammals show different degrees of abhorrents to inequality.Especially primates.
But essentially isn't the pursuit of real justice not possible? Calling it necessary means this will make those who deem the power to wield it, to better humanity, unjust from the beginning? Isn't justice another way of claiming superiority? Doesn't a despot in the world use it to claim there power? If we agree justice is not a noble pursuit and clearly impossible (like following the word of god), what laws or punishments should be changed or updated? How would you feel if a mass murder or child molester was treated with a kind hand, rather than the visceral feeling of gutting them like a pig and dancing in the entrails as they slowing die. I am the first to admit this sounds more like justice at a primal level. But should we be smarter than that?
Whatever you do you were going to do. Whatever you propose you were going to propose Either way, it will have the effect it has based on he effects of what you do or propose.
"It's a fact that one's behavior (at least to varying degree) is influenced by laws and consequences, and other people; whether our perceptions of free will or determinism are real or are delusions is largely irrelevant to this conversation, because (one way or another) we can usually adjust our behavior based on circumstances."
My point exactly!
But if another person, environment, obstacle or so on comes up determinism still applies. It would say that the path predetermined to have that incident (seemingly random) cross into our awareness (important word there) and your reaction to it was already determined and therefore can be predicted if we are aware enough of the predetermined path. Ok let me know if I got that right Unseen?
We know things are determined by events before them. We can't know if events are predetermined, but it's likely some things are not, due to randomness on the quantum level. Determinism applies on the gross (atomic and above) level. It's hard to know when and how events on the subatomic level affect events on the gross level.
but an unexpected event if we are aware of the determined path leads to a predictable response. Sorry remove predetermined and replace with determined, because predetermine would mean we are unaware of the determine path we are on.
I have no idea what you just said there.
What don't you understand? the dertmined path exists without the need to be aware of it. so seemingly random events are still part of the determined path.
That's just repeating what I said, which is that events in the gross (world we live in day to day) level are determined at all times. Sometimes by events on the same level but, possibly occasionally, by random occurrences on the subatomic quantum level.
@unseen repeating it to verify I understood what you were saying is all. Its called listening and repeating so you know I was understanding you. And I appreciate the thought lesson and pattern.
If I can add to Unseen's reply, you said...
...and therefore can be predicted if we are aware enough of the predetermined path.
That can be a pretty big if. All the computers of the universe put together couldn't predict a lot of things in detail. (For example, they at least couldn't predict each others' actions.)
the determined path doesn't need awareness of it's existance to actually be determined. its all a discipline in response to be less in the world of belief and more coherently scientific even when responding to things that seem completely random and un predictable. It really does make sense within this discussion. I know its hard to recognize but part of the issue is we can't really know if someone really won't commit the crime again wihtout attempting to answer if this is actually there nature and no solution will work or if specific steps can predict behavior.
I know we seem to change all the time but is it possible to MAKE someone change and I think it's possible to MAKE someone aware of there determined path not change.
is it possible to MAKE someone change
No, it's not always possible to MAKE someone change, but it's usually possible to positively influence them.
It took science a long time to make rockets work dependably enough, and we've heard the cliche about how difficult rocket science is. I'll bet human nature's even more complicated, but it's worth a lot more attention than we've historically given it.