Free Will Skepticism and Criminal Behavior

Author(s):  
Derk Pereboom
Author(s):  
Derk Pereboom ◽  
Gregg D. Caruso

Derk Pereboom and Gregg Caruso’s chapter on hard-incompatibilist existentialism explores the practical and existential implications of free will skepticism, focusing on punishment, morality, and meaning in life. They consider two different routes to free will skepticism: the route that denies the causal efficacy of the types of willing required for free will, which receives impetus from pioneering work in neuroscience, and the route that does not deny the causal efficacy of the will but instead claims that, whether deterministic or indeterministic, it does not achieve the level of control to count as free will. They argue that while there are compelling objections to the first route, the second remains intact and that free will skepticism allows for adequate ways of responding to criminal behavior—in particular, incapacitation, rehabilitation, and alternation of relevant social conditions—and that these methods are both morally justified and sufficient for good social policy.


2016 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregg D. Caruso ◽  

Author(s):  
Farah Focquaert ◽  
Andrea L. Glenn ◽  
Adrian Raine

In Chapter 13, the authors address the issue of free will skepticism and criminal behavior, asking how we should, as a society, deal with criminal behavior in the current era of neuroexistentialism and if our belief in free will is essential to adequately addressing it, or if neurocriminology offer a new way of addressing crime without resorting to backward-looking notions of moral responsibility and guilt. They argue for a neurocriminological approach to “moral answerability” and forward-looking claims of responsibility that focus on the moral betterment or moral enhancement of individuals prone to criminal behavior and on reparative measures toward victims, placed within a broader public health perspective of human behavior. Within this framework, neurocriminology approaches to criminal behavior may provide specific guidance within a broader moral enhancement framework. Rather than undermining current criminal justice practices, the free will skeptics’ approach can draw on neurocriminological findings to reduce immoral behavior.


2012 ◽  
Vol 62 (249) ◽  
pp. 833-852 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Vilhauer

Author(s):  
Paul Russell

This chapter articulates the essential features of an alternative compatibilist position, one that is responsive to sources of resistance to the compatibilist program based on considerations of fate and luck. Issues of skepticism and pessimism are carefully distinguished as they arise in this context. A compatibilism that is properly responsive to concerns about fate and luck is committed to free will pessimism, distinct from free will skepticism. Critical compatibilism and free will pessimism should not be understood as providing a solution to the free will problem but rather as a basis for rejecting the assumptions and aspirations that lie behind it—assumptions and aspirations that have been shared by all the major parties involved in this debate. The stance of free will pessimism recognizes not a (skeptical) problem waiting to be solved but a (troubling) human predicament that needs to be recognized and acknowledged.


Author(s):  
Gregg D. Caruso ◽  
Elizabeth Shaw ◽  
Derk Pereboom

2009 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 489-511 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Vilhauer

In contemporary free will theory, a significant number of philosophers are once again taking seriously the possibility that human beings do not have free will, and are therefore not morally responsible for their actions. (Free will is understood here as whatever satisfies the control condition of moral responsibility.) Free will theorists commonly assume that giving up the belief that human beings are morally responsible implies giving up all our beliefs about desert. But the consequences of giving up the belief that we are morally responsible are not quite this dramatic. Giving up the belief that we are morally responsible undermines many, and perhaps most, of the desert claims we are pretheoretically inclined to accept. But it does not undermine desert claims based on the sheer fact of personhood. Even in the absence of belief in moral responsibility, personhood-based desert claims require us to respect persons and their rights. So personhood-based desert claims can provide a substantial role for desert in free will skeptics’ ethical theories.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document