Guilt, responsibility and justice

(conversation about)

With the topic:

Forgive

• What happened had to happen as it happened.

• That the feelings of vengeance and retribution arise from the original structures of the human being.

"You said that everything is predetermined, because everything, including humans, consists of substances and laws, and everything is a successive leap of structures. That is, everyone had to do exactly what he did. He ultimately had no choice! "

"That's right," I answered.

"But then nobody would ever blame."

"'Guilty' in the sense that he could have done something different, not."

"But a person can decide for himself whether he, for example, wants to take the right or left path! Doesn't he have that freedom? "

"Of course, the human can decide which way he wants to take," I nodded. " But basically he has no freedom. Freedom is just an ancient human dream. For whichever direction he decides, he drops them according to the substances in them, more precisely: aims that are subject to very specific laws. These are in him from conception or have formed in the course of his life. These substances and laws bring about his decision.”

"Is a society conceivable," CP asked, "who knows no guilt and, consequently, does not punish anyone for his wrongdoing?"

"Of course not," I replied. "No society can do without a legal system. And you have to make sure that the laws of society are respected. 'Guilt' means yes: the legal obligation to perform, to make amends. "

"But isn't it unjust to punish someone who has broken a law of society? Because according to your theory, everyone had to do what they did!”

"Right. But whether something is just, that is, right or wrong, can always be said in terms of an aim. And if that means maintaining the order of a society with certain laws, then it is fair to punish the lawbreaker. "

"What are 'right' and 'judging '?"

"Right comes from direction and is agreement thing between humans. Starting from the aim of 'knowledge', no one is to blame for what he did, because the natural substances and laws compelled him to do so. But if you start from the goal of keeping a society together, then the perpetrator must be to blame because he violated man-made laws that he should respect. This is to discourage him or others who want to do something similar from repeating such behavior. It is perfectly clear that nobody can change the past. Consequently, no one can be convicted. One can only condemn someone to make up for what he has done and can be punished so that he does not do it again. "

"“Can't someone," CP said, "who was convicted, say anyway, 'It was unfair to punish me, because I had to do what I did, after all, everything is predetermined! Isn't that an excellent excuse for his actions?"

"Sure, he can say that. But then you can also reply: 'There was no other way that we condemned you. We had to do what we did. Everything is predetermined! '"

"What about the responsibility?" CP asked now.

“Responsibility means that people are accountable for their actions or omissions, i.e. they feel responsible. He learns this through his socialization process, which trains the conscience, together with the goals that lie within him from the original structures. Emotions in particular play a major role here.”

"Could one develop a natural behavioural context that is valid for all humans?“ CP wanted to know now.

"You mean a natural law that everyone is subject to? A right for all to derive from nature? "

"Yes."

“You can't do that. Because 'law' is defined by aims and these can be very different. "

"But isn't that what people are striving for?"

“They seek to establish their own behavior that they see as positive, and they want others to conform and have a similar set of values. The more related we are to others in terms of inner values, the more we like them, and vice versa. People like to see their own scale of values in such a way that nature or God created it as the right one.”

"But doesn't this always lead to conflicts between people, societies and cultures?"

"That's how it shows the history."

"Another question: If it should turn out that everything actually runs according to substances and laws, so that humans have no free will, then would not many legal systems have to be rewritten? Because these are still based on the fact that people can choose freely and have to atone for their guilt that they have incurred. "

"That should actually be so," I replied, "but it won't be, because the people who believe in free will, will probably always be far in the majority and dominate the jurisdiction. For example, the question of culpability: Under it, lawyers understand whether the perpetrator was at the time of the action in full possession of his mental powers to understand the injustice of his act. In other words, whether he could have prevented his actions with his free will.

But the substances and laws have led to this action, it had to be done as it happened! That is why I understand culpability to mean that the perpetrator should make amends for his crime as far as possible.

Well, it would be interesting to find out how the respective legislatures and judges came to assume that humans have free will," I continued, and then immediately gave the answer myself: "Traditionally and especially probably from the experience with themselves. Because they believe and think they feel that they make their own decisions of their own free will, although this may not have been examined by them at all! They simply assumed it, presumably because otherwise they would be deprived of an important legal basis.”

"That sounds like arbitrariness," it came to CP's mind.

"Well - you could call it that because there is no evidence of free will."

It takes a lot of love for the truth and the ability to also see one's negative sides, i.e. to get closer to one's own psychology in order to come to the conclusion that one ultimately has no free will. Above all, this includes the ability to analyse oneself and one's own behaviour. But the biggest obstacle is: These people want to believe in their freedom! You are at the midpoint of this belief.

If you really want to understand, you have to put yourself in the exact moment of the crime: What was the perpetrator's structure like at the time and what was his environment like exactly.

The more precisely one can put oneself in the position of the situation at that time and feel it, the better one can understand it and inevitably comes to the conclusion, if one can understand it exactly, that it had to happen exactly as it did happen.

Of course, lawyers see it differently - because they are shaped by different aims (especially by the history of their respective jurisprudence).

They're neither scientists nor psychologists. They are fed by what they have learned; Among other things, to condemn the perpetrator because they assume that people have free will (without being able to prove it, of course), and could have done it differently at the time of the crime.

To understand this accordingly, would probably exceed the abilities of the judges.

If you want to imagine a situation identical to an earlier one, then that is probably simply impossible. Because:

1. It is too diverse

2. It is influenced by the current circumstances.

And so they judge according to previous practice, also because society demands it. "

--- forgive ---

"That reminds me, that it is said: 'To understand everything means to forgive everything.' That would fit well with your attitude.”

"Yes, that's the way to put it - though, in everyday life, that's hardly possible for the reasons I mentioned earlier. In general, society has to punish infringements in order not to violate its structure. And that is exactly what the individual does to repair his damaged world and preserve stability. "