• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do The Mentally Challenged Have Free Will??

Does Free Will Include the Mentally Challenged?

  • Yes

    Votes: 10 38.5%
  • No

    Votes: 3 11.5%
  • Unsure

    Votes: 6 23.1%
  • Who cares...

    Votes: 7 26.9%

  • Total voters
    26

Bodi

Just waiting for my set...
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
122,663
Reaction score
27,419
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
I see The religious praying at churches and stuff after horrible events like this latest school shooting. They comfort themselves with the idea that "God has a plan". Well, God gave us free will... so the idea that there is a plan kinda makes sense, to a degree. What about the mentally challenged socio-paths that commit crimes like this. Manson, Bundy, this ****tard who killed the beautiful and innocent little children. Can they have free will? They can't, in my opinion. They are ****ed in the head. They can't make rational decisions AT ALL. They don't understand consequences. Many of them lack morals.

I just wonder because the idea of free will seems to get tossed out the window when it comes to these ****s... so, logically, that shoots a hole in the entire idea that there is ANY free will.

What say you?
 
Okay, I will try to address the whole free will issue as simply as possible. I tend to take a Deterministic viewpoint (based on philosophical reading of which you should do some on your own). Wikipedia says "Determinism is a philosophy stating that for everything that happens there are conditions such that, given those conditions, nothing else could happen." So if you understand this and realize that science can determine said things then freewill is not an issue, but the problem is when you take a Kierkegaard leap of faith then the freewill issue becomes easily dogmatically understood. So freewill isn't a question of science or reasoning, but rather a science of taking a step in the dark.

Edit: I probably just failed at addressing it simply. :3oops:
 
Last edited:
I see The religious praying at churches and stuff after horrible events like this latest school shooting. They comfort themselves with the idea that "God has a plan". Well, God gave us free will... so the idea that there is a plan kinda makes sense, to a degree. What about the mentally challenged socio-paths that commit crimes like this. Manson, Bundy, this ****tard who killed the beautiful and innocent little children. Can they have free will? They can't, in my opinion. They are ****ed in the head. They can't make rational decisions AT ALL. They don't understand consequences. Many of them lack morals.

I just wonder because the idea of free will seems to get tossed out the window when it comes to these ****s... so, logically, that shoots a hole in the entire idea that there is ANY free will.

What say you?


I don't entirely agree. I think that if the subject is capable of any degree of reason, then he is capable of some degree of free will. I believe a choice was made at some point.

There are many people who are born with certain mental issues. Some seem to be saints; others are certainly demonic; the rest are simply human, like the rest of us but with some limitations.

You pays your money and you chooses your frame of reference. I have to believe in free will, it is the only way the universe makes any sense to me.
 
There is no 'will', free or otherwise. The concept of 'will' is an interpretation of a complex of phenomenon, unified by the self-observer into something that actually exists as a multiplicity.
 
So, "mentally challenged" are the criminals with mental illness, not those that might be otherwise be associated with intellectual disabilities, mental health problems, and so forth?

It is everybody... but the point of this thread is to discuss those that commit criminal acts and how people justify God's Plan by grieving.
 
I see The religious praying at churches and stuff after horrible events like this latest school shooting. They comfort themselves with the idea that "God has a plan". Well, God gave us free will... so the idea that there is a plan kinda makes sense, to a degree. What about the mentally challenged socio-paths that commit crimes like this. Manson, Bundy, this ****tard who killed the beautiful and innocent little children. Can they have free will? They can't, in my opinion. They are ****ed in the head. They can't make rational decisions AT ALL. They don't understand consequences. Many of them lack morals.

I just wonder because the idea of free will seems to get tossed out the window when it comes to these ****s... so, logically, that shoots a hole in the entire idea that there is ANY free will.

What say you?


Free will does not imply logic, good sense, rational thought or charitable intention.

An act like this, as heinous as it is, is a proof of free will.
 
I see The religious praying at churches and stuff after horrible events like this latest school shooting. They comfort themselves with the idea that "God has a plan". Well, God gave us free will... so the idea that there is a plan kinda makes sense, to a degree. What about the mentally challenged socio-paths that commit crimes like this. Manson, Bundy, this ****tard who killed the beautiful and innocent little children. Can they have free will? They can't, in my opinion. They are ****ed in the head. They can't make rational decisions AT ALL. They don't understand consequences. Many of them lack morals.

I just wonder because the idea of free will seems to get tossed out the window when it comes to these ****s... so, logically, that shoots a hole in the entire idea that there is ANY free will.

What say you?

I don't think every psychopath acts on their violent impulses. There are plenty of people hanging on by their fingernails who choose not to give in to the impulses their sick minds suggest they do. I do think it's disingenuous to use a sick mind as proof (or no proof) of free will. They are anomalies.
 
Free will does not imply logic, good sense, rational thought or charitable intention.

An act like this, as heinous as it is, is a proof of free will.

How and why?
 
I don't think every psychopath acts on their violent impulses. There are plenty of people hanging on by their fingernails who choose not to give in to the impulses their sick minds suggest they do. I do think it's disingenuous to use a sick mind as proof (or no proof) of free will. They are anomalies.

Do they have free will then? If they can't make a rational conscious choice then don't they lack free will?
 
I think that the freedom of the will, like everything, is relative. Relative to physical barriers, everybody's will is free in the absence of them. Relative to other people, our will is free so long as they do not force our hand. Relative to experience, our will is less free and more bound to the events and encounters that shape our worldview. Relative to our mind, our will is, again, less free and more bound to the inclinations and limits that it sets for us.

In short, I don't think that our will is entirely free or entirely bound to any one thing. I think it's a bit more complex than that. When we're acting, it often feels as if our actions are entirely within our control, but then if will look back on our experiences or examine the mental state we're in, we're often confronted with the reality that we had less control than we thought we did. After all, if I touch a fire and get burned, I'm not going to touch fire again and even though I choose not to touch fire again, that choice was, in great part, determined by my previous experience with fire, by my mind's ability to remember that experience, by my mind's ability to apply that memory to the present reality and so on.

This is why I have trouble getting angry at the killers. I don't perceive events like this as simply as "he's evil and he chose to do this". There's always more to the story. Choice is not the final story. We choose things for reasons. There are causes for our actions - good and bad. And yes, I know, there are plenty of people with mental disorders and illnesses, with bad childhoods and so on who don't shoot up schools. But those people don't erase the realities that influence the will (or choices) of killers and other violent people I'm talking about.
 
Do they have free will then? If they can't make a rational conscious choice then don't they lack free will?

Yes, but simply not understanding the consequences of an action, yet having the ability to make yourself do things, is not showing a complete lack of free will. Legally it is not understanding the difference between right and wrong, yet that is shakey at best, as not being able (or willing) to assist in your own defense gets you most of the way there. Some people may "hear voices" or have very strange descriptions of reality, yet if they lack "free will" who (or what) is in control of them?
 
Their inability to make rational choices has no hold on their abilitiy to make their own choices. Insanity is no excuse. An insane murderer is still a murderer
 
I always thought that free will in a religious context means that we are not pre-destined in how we act or what happens to us.....
IOW, our actions have a lot to say in how we get judged in the hereafter.

That being said, I believe that Adam Lanza was as deranged as they come, but very skilled at hiding it...he was a ticking bomb for a long time.
something was written about his being goth, and his getting together with like minded friends to play video games.
Both seem indicative of emotional immaturity and failure to adapt to societal norms.
 
Their inability to make rational choices has no hold on their abilitiy to make their own choices. Insanity is no excuse. An insane murderer is still a murderer

Agreed. Insanity is not a valid excuse. I would argue that to murder somebody insanity is a requisite.
 
Agreed. Insanity is not a valid excuse. I would argue that to murder somebody insanity is a requisite.

I would have to disagree. A simple difference in brain structure can cause a person to be very hot tempered. Not very many people think when they are mad. Things happen. Still it is no excuse to be mad (by either definition)
 
I would have to disagree. A simple difference in brain structure can cause a person to be very hot tempered. Not very many people think when they are mad. Things happen. Still it is no excuse to be mad (by either definition)

Murder. Intentional killing. Not temporary blindness or a black out seeing red. Two colors one state of mind. Strange.
 
Their inability to make rational choices has no hold on their abilitiy to make their own choices. Insanity is no excuse. An insane murderer is still a murderer
Excuse for what? I would say that certain types of "insanity" certainly excuse people from bearing the total responsibility of their behavior - murder or not.
 
Do they have free will then? If they can't make a rational conscious choice then don't they lack free will?

I think it's clear that "they" do, in the broad sense. That's what I meant when I said that there are most likely plenty of psychopaths who are able to resist acting on the things their sick minds suggest they do.
 
What about the mentally challenged socio-paths that commit crimes like this. Manson, Bundy, this ****tard who killed the beautiful and innocent little children. Can they have free will? They can't, in my opinion. They are ****ed in the head. They can't make rational decisions AT ALL. They don't understand consequences. Many of them lack morals.



What say you?

They have free will, but they lack foresight, sufficient empathy, and self-control, so there is a struggle at play, internally.
 
Excuse for what? I would say that certain types of "insanity" certainly excuse people from bearing the total responsibility of their behavior - murder or not.

Then they should be removed from society if they cannot be expected to live by its rules.
 
I think it's clear that "they" do, in the broad sense. That's what I meant when I said that there are most likely plenty of psychopaths who are able to resist acting on the things their sick minds suggest they do.

Ahhh... OK. That makes sense. Thanks for the clarification, Mags.
 
They have free will, but they lack foresight, sufficient empathy, and self-control, so there is a struggle at play, internally.

That is a really good explaination lizzie... thanks. I think you just changed my mind. :)
 
Then they should be removed from society if they cannot be expected to live by its rules.
I agree, but that's not what I was commenting on. I was contesting your assertion that "insanity is no excuse." Do you concede that this is incorrect or do you stand by that assertion? If you still stand by it, why?
 
Back
Top Bottom