reply to post by Titen-Sxull
There are two ways I would respond to your question about morals:
1- As I said in the OP, we don't have a choice to "do" or "not do" anything with criminals. What's gonna happen will happen. We have no choice. So,
it's already invalid to argue: what are we going to do if? Stuff will happen when it's gonna happen. No choice here.
2- However, there are causal results of realizing the fact that we don't have a choice, one of which is talking about it right now, and in general.
So, that, as an event, has its own effect, and yes, it might and it is already being argued as a moral factor. I think it's wrong to say that
criminals are not responsible for what they do because people who judge them are not an exception to causality. It's like punishing people for
breathing air, or for being people. It's like a fish punishing another for swimming in the water. Causality is so extra-dimensional that it's wrong to
base your judgement of people on it. It's so, impractical too. Because, in order to stop crime, we have to fight criminals, using causality. If people
know it's illegal to do this and that, this will have a causal effect on them and will decrease the chance of crime. If we let a serial killer
survive, he's gonna kill us all. So, it won't be practical not to stop him. He kills with causality, and we stop him with causality too.
By impractical I also mean that we don't have any data, but, all we have is the fact (let's assume that it's a fact for the sake of this argument)
that people are under complete and total influence of causality. So, we have the fact, yet no data about why that is happening and no data on the past
or the future. This makes the fact useless. Because, you either know the past and the future and accordingly you will stop crime before it happens and
really the one to be blamed if crimes occur will be people who didn't act to stop it knowing that they were definitely going to happen (like god), or
they don't have sufficient data and they simply just have to wait for crimes to happen because you can't arrest people before they commit their
crimes. Which spawns another set of questions about whether it's "ethical" to arrest people before they commit the crime even if you were certain that
they're going to do it. Again, I say, if you are in control of those people and you see their crime and not act to stop it, then it's really your
fault. It's like knowing that a building will fall down killing all its occupants, and having the choice to call them all before the collapse, and
choosing not to do it. That's a crime.
Now, this gets even more complicated because people who monitor activities in society predicting crimes are themselves bound to causality and they
don't dwell in a higher dimension. So, they are not in a better or worse position than those they are monitoring, so, how do we decide if they should
play God? I guess it will never be anyone's decision. It will be the good old technique of having power over people by force. Those who are stronger,
smarter, and have more knowledge will always control those who are weaker, dumber, and ignorant. It worked that way for millions of years, and will
continue to work like that.
edit on 12-10-2011 by TheAlmo because: (no reason given)