Do all police believe in free will?

[CitizenX]

We make choices every few minutes. To say there is no free will is asinine.

My experience has been that people who continually make bad choices in their lives also blame others for all their problems. The fact they aren't introspective is the reason they continually find themselves in bad life situations.

These same people tend to rationalize and justify their bad choices and the examples you used are classic.

I have relatives that I've known all my life who grew up in the same circumstances as my brother and me. Although we had the same childhood environments, many of them have served prison time because they opted for the easy way to obtain what they wanted. They also are now in their 50's and 60's and still blame "the system" and others for their misfortunes.

But to try and claim that you and your relatives circumstances were the same because you grew up near each other or with the same people is a gross oversimplification. It is quite possible for 2 people to grow up in the same household and have completely different experiences, role models (or lack thereof) etc. A parent may have more in common with one child than another and thus be closer with them. Despite experiencing the same traumatic experiences one child might recognize it as being caused by something greater than just the people involved and base their actions on an understanding of the natural world and its potential threats instead of just doing what will earn them respect from others. etc.

Choices and free will do not necessarily go hand and hand. If there is a reason for a choice, then how can we attribute that choice to free will? What would a choice driven by free will even mean? Doing something totally random that there is no reason for, like driving to Mexico in the middle of the night?

The people that some of your friends keep trying to refer to as lacking common sense or being morons may just be more concerned with natural laws of the world than they are people's perceptions. As the courts routinely identify, it is much more difficult to determine right and wrong than the idea of common sense would indicate.

[retdetsgt]

Choices and free will do not necessarily go hand and hand. If there is a reason for a choice, then how can we attribute that choice to free will? What would a choice driven by free will even mean? Doing something totally random that there is no reason for, like driving to Mexico in the middle of the night?

And you base that theory on what? Free will vs. destiny vs. nature is more appropriate for a philosophical forum, don't you think? Or do you have a real choice in your rantings?

[CitizenX]

And you base that theory on what? Free will vs. destiny vs. nature is more appropriate for a philosophical forum, don't you think? Or do you have a real choice in your rantings?

Even if I did not have a choice, that doesn't mean my actions couldn't be influenced by your statement. Instead, my actions would be determined by everything including your statements.

The theory is based on deductive logic, the same thing that allows us to know for example that 1+1 = 2. How can a choice be what you think of it as if there is a reason for making that choice? If the reason caused the choice?

[retdetsgt]

No, my theory is based living 64 years and knowing people who have taken a few philosophy courses and like to demonstrate their IQ by mentally masturbating in front of people they feel superior to.

Isn't that the real reason you're here?

[CitizenX]

No. I am here to influence others with ideas, or learn from others whose ideas directly address my own.

I have no interest in trying to demonstrate a level of intelligence. What really drives our behavior? It has a lot to do with what you call common sense.

My common sense seems to be different than others. When I am forced to interact with people who don't follow the rules of "common sense" by my standards, it causes problems. Except the number of people with my kind of "common sense" are far less than the number of people without it.

Thus I am hardly in a position where I can say "Use your common sense" and not identify and explain my thinking.

[Curt581]

When I am forced to interact with people who don't follow the rules of "common sense" by my standards, it causes problems.

"Your standards"?

Who the hell do you think you are?

Yes, societal rules and laws apply to you. Abide by them, or pay the consequences.

I don't care about your reasoning, beyond what I need to establish prior intent.

You're not even interesting, let alone "special".

[retdetsgt]

What really drives our behavior? It has a lot to do with what you call common sense.

And you think a police forum is the place to debate this?

I took a year and a half of philosophy in the 70's while getting my bachelor's in sociology and went on to get my masters. At that time, I sat and went through all the inane arguments you're putting forth now. The difference is, I was already in my 30's and knew it served no real purpose except to provide employment to people who otherwise had no useful skills that contributed to society. At that time, I could have debated you at length, but unfortunately after I left college I left behind a lot of that as it didn't apply one iota to much of anything. So alas, I can't keep up with you on philosophical matters any longer.

I did learn while doing my thesis that the people in academia are even farther from reality that I ever expected. My professors, who deemed themselves experts on the theories of poverty hadn't actually talked to a poor person in decades. In fact, they found anyone below their social station a bit repulsive.

At that time, I was working in a uniform car in the poorest, highest crime rate area of my city. The people I interviewed for my research were people lived there. The primary thing I learned is that it will never change because the people in charge either have no real idea of the underlying causes or refuse to look at them because it would reflect negatively on themselves. Defending my thesis was interesting because although they tried their best to denounce it, they couldn't refute the facts and had to grudgingly accept it.

So, what drives behavior? Who cares? The police don't. We have no more influence on society than the garbage man that picks up your trash. All we do is try to keep a lid on society so you can be relatively safe in your dorm room while you debate high philosophical issues that no one really cares about.

I base that theory on experience, a lot of it. And people learn from experience. That's why you don't see a lot of old criminals. Most people, like children and hot stoves learn the causes and effects of life. It just takes some a lot longer.

[CitizenX]

"Your standards"?

Who the hell do you think you are?

Yes, societal rules and laws apply to you. Abide by them, or pay the consequences.

I don't care about your reasoning, beyond what I need to establish prior intent.

You're not even interesting, let alone "special".

A messenger. It's not possible for me to follow other people's "common sense" because to me parts of it are clearly wrong. When I share the reasoning that causes me to believe this, the other people are persuaded. Or hide from the argument.

If their common sense was correct, why can't they just share the reasoning and convince me?

Societal norms are ultimately decided upon by some guy trying to represent everyone's interests. If you are there when that person does so, you might influence the rules just by addressing one of his arguments.

It's clear that societal norms are far from being beyond reproach when they once included things as silly as "All jews must die" or "No baseball on sunday" etc.

[Citicop]

A messenger. It's not possible for me to follow other people's "common sense" because to me parts of it are clearly wrong. When I share the reasoning that causes me to believe this, the other people are persuaded. Or hide from the argument.

If their common sense was correct, why can't they just share the reasoning and convince me?

Societal norms are ultimately decided upon by some guy trying to represent everyone's interests. If you are there when that person does so, you might influence the rules just by addressing one of his arguments.

It's clear that societal norms are far from being beyond reproach when they once included things as silly as "All jews must die" or "No baseball on sunday" etc.

You are not going to convert anyone here, I think. And I don't think you are really interested in debate. You are involved now in several threads, and it seems to me that you are arguing using circular logic simply for the sake of argument. That is not what we do here. If you aren't interested in our answers themselves, and instead just want pointless debate, you are in the wrong place.

Societal norms are NOT decided by some guy representing everyone's interests. They are decided when almost everyone in a society agrees on something.

I welcome your continued presence here, but you need to conform to the way we do things here. This is not a philosophy forum; it is a law enforcement forum. If you have an occasional off topic question, we have an area for that. But if you aren't interested in Law Enforcement issues, I don't know if you will be happy here.

I am stopping this because I don't think you really want resolution to the question.

-Citicop.