"One of the images shared by Kitna was of a prepubescent girl being sexually abused by a man. The phrase "so young junior" was written on that picture, and another of a pubescent girl. Kitna told a detective he thought the pictures were legal because he found them online. Kenyon, the attorney, argued that Kitna should be released with no monetary bond and suggested that those three images could be considered child erotica instead of child porn."
I just saw where he was dismissed from the team. UF dismisses QB Jalen Kitna from Gators after arrest for child pornography Florida Gators dismiss Jalen Kitna after arrest on child pornography complaints
If you have a choice to eat pizza or something else, then its free will, and even if you are forced to eat a pizza at gunpoint, you still have the choice to resist (and I guess get shot for not eating pizza) or submit and eat the pizza. The opposite would be some sort of determinism where your DNA predetermines your eating of pizza for you, as well as your desire to live by submitting to pizza eating to save yourself.
No, in your scenario you have free will to choose pizza or salad. You like pizza better but you're also trying to lose weight, so you order the salad. Now you could go deeper than this and say that you were predestined to make that particular decision at that particular time, and that you are just a character in a cosmic movie, unknowingly playing your role exactly as it is in the script, but we have no way of knowing that. Based on what we do know, you had free will to choose the pizza or the salad.
Under my definition of free will I have it isn’t free will. The choices are there but you choose the pizza every single time. You aren’t choosing something you don’t want. If you go back in time you will still pick the pizza everytime. If you are held at gunpoint then you were forced to eat the pizza. So where is the free will here?
Its a pretty simple concept, if you have a choice over your actions, its free will. If you don't, then its a deterministic view you have. Being forced to do something doesn't negate free will, because you ostensibly have the choice to submit or resist.
So in this scenario you WANTED to lose weight so you were forced to choose the salad. Under the definition I gave this is not free will because you’ll choose the salad every time because you WANT to lose weight. Again, you don’t choose something you DON’T want. You are only choosing it because you either want it or you’re forced to choose it. I can’t make the choice to choose something I don’t want.
The reason you say we have free will is because your definition of free will is not the same as mine. Your definition is simply having a choice. My definition is if we were to wind back the clock in any situation it was within the realm of possibility for you to have acted differently to the way that you actually did. In my definition you don’t have free will.
Yes, I suppose if you change the way things are commonly understood you could make that argument, congratulations.
We'll just have to disagree. You make choices based on available information and how you feel at the time. You want both things, you want the pizza but you also want to lose weight. Sometimes pizza wins out, sometimes losing weight wins out. We have the free will to choose one or the other. Now if we are somehow predestined to make every single choice in our lives before we actually make them then we don't have free will, only the illusion of free will. But we have no way of knowing that. Or you could take the Everything Everywhere All At Once approach and say there are an infinite number of universes where we make every possible choice and split off into a new universe for every choice. In that example the you that chose pizza is now in a different universe than the you that chose salad.
Free will is the capacity to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded. Free will is closely linked to the concepts of moral responsibility, praise, culpability, sin, and other judgements which apply only to actions that are freely chosen. Free Will (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
I didn't watch the hearing and haven't seen the arrest report (it was apparently released to the media, so we know some of what's in it). My guess is that the "erotica" to which the lawyer may be referring probably relates to the pictures of the girls in the shower - not the sex abuse video involving the man sexually abusing an even younger girl. I don't know the law, but my understanding is that nude photos aren't inherently illegal (I'm sure these are though), and even then, they may be treated differently based upon what exactly is being depicted. Another sub-issue I've read is that often times - I suppose based upon evidentiary reasons - men who get caught with illicit pictures and videos actually get longer prison sentences than men who get convicted of sexually abusing minors themselves.
Certain acts are evil and biologically driven. Society deems the illegality of these acts, and metes out the consequences.
I think free will is an illusion in the larger sense. I know y’all are talking about pizza and salad, but in other contexts, do we always exercise free will? For example, is one exercising free will to be heterosexual? Is one exercising free will to prefer children over adults? Kitna will be punished, but I have no illusions that he could help himself.
I'll have to disagree here. In each instance you make the choice that you want. You cannot determine your wants. Think of something you want. You cannot un-want it. Think of something you don't want. Try to want it. It's not possible. I still think it is fundamentally important to understand that there are only two reasons why you will ever do anything. Because you want to or because you are forced to. As Sam Harris says “You can do what you decide to do—but you cannot decide what you will decide to do." Under a theological framework where there is an omniscient God this makes sense.
I think Sam Harris cover this well “Take a moment to think about the context in which your next decision will occur: You did not pick your parents or the time and place of your birth. You didn’t choose your gender or most of your life experiences. You had no control whatsoever over your genome or the development of your brain. And now your brain is making choices on the basis of preferences and beliefs that have been hammered into it over a lifetime—by your genes, your physical development since the moment you were conceived, and the interactions you have had with other people, events, and ideas. Where is the freedom in this? Yes, you are free to do what you want even now. But where did your desires come from?” “The men and women on death row have some combination of bad genes, bad parents, bad environments, and bad ideas (and the innocent, of course, have supremely bad luck). Which of these quantities, exactly, were they responsible for? No human being is responsible for his genes or his upbringing, yet we have every reason to believe that these factors determine his character. Our system of justice should reflect an understanding that any of us could have been dealt a very different hand in life. In fact, it seems immoral not to recognize just how much luck is involved in morality itself.”
Yeah I find Harris’ arguments pretty compelling, and it’s among the many reasons I kind of bristle when I hear those who talk of evil and are so quick to demand punishment. Clearly for the safety of society those who engage in criminal behavior need to be either remediated or else humanely segregated from society. There are clearly some crimes so abhorrent that segregation is a must. It is true that punishment can be a deterrent to aberrant behaviors, but on balance it seems to be a pretty ineffective strategy.
