[Q mystic]

Originally Posted by Zankou

Why is some concept of "free will" required for punishment?

It's enough to make punishment meaningful if it punishes illicit action. The point of punishment is not deterrence per se, it's justice -- preventing people from getting ahead by wrongful actions, regardless of whether they "freely choose" to commit them or not.

In ancient legal systems, the impetus towards justice was so strong that inanimate objects, animals, and the dead were commonly put on trial and condemned. Think of Xerxes scourging the Hellespont, for example. Another example, one of the things that Mohammed forbade was the common practice in Arabia of trying and punishing the dead. Over time, the coercive and deterrent aspects of punishment became predominant in more advanced civilizations, and the impulse for justice was dispersed and minimized. Nowadays we hardly think about punishing the dead, but you can imagine the appeal of such a concept -- even in death, you won't get away with it, everything and everyone you care about will pay a price for your sins.

Transcendental religions (and their secularized successors) effectively defanged the burning desire for justice across the world, helping civilization on its path. Instead, pitiful lies about justice in another world or possession by evil spirits (aka, liberalism's "bad childhood") are used to exorcise the demands for justice.

If there is no free will, there is no punishment right?