

The Original Natural Born Killers - dnetesn
http://nautil.us/issue/17/big-bangs/the-original-natural-born-killers

======
andreasvc
I have never understood why people are eager to jump to the conclusion that a
supposed lack of free will or the presence of some biological reason should
absolve a perpetrator of moral responsibility. I believe the laws in society
are arbitrary, just as the assignment of responsibility. By arbitrary I mean
that laws are not based on some natural foundation that gives them legitimacy,
but on how we want society to be.

~~~
nicklolsen
Maybe my understanding of the "free will" concept is inaccurate, but it seems
that a lack of free will means you cannot control your own thoughts,
decisions, etc.

If that is true, then how would it make sense to hold somebody responsible for
something they cannot control?

~~~
andreasvc
If we're talking about someone who obviously cannot take care of himself then
I'd agree, but in that case the law assigns responsibility to some legal
guardian.

For the rest, note that getting drunk will also mean you'll have less control
over your own thoughts, decisions, etc., but this shouldn't affect the
responsibility we assign to any consequences of that.

I'm arguing against the idea that a philosophical argument for the complete
non-existence of free will should affect our social construction of
responsibility. Similarly, even if there is a biological or psychological
cause to a crime, if someone cooks up some elaborate psychopathic plan, the
law should assign responsibility regardless.

~~~
paradoxofcourt
I blame Euathlus.

------
pavel_lishin
I wonder why their photo is subtitled like this: "Richard Loeb (right) and
Nathan Leopold"

Why not just label it "Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb"? Why go out of order?

