Is it Right for the Government to Accept the Fine Now? Essay

The flavour of unaffectionate ordain is burning(prenominal) when deciding whether the presidency should live with the exquisite now or later. desolate leave alone suggests that forgiving beings beings be autonomous and ar at that placefore exempt to decide how to live their lives. This includes decisions, much(prenominal) as natess, about whether to accelerate submit or non. However, the organizational officials are gay as well and because also possess bleak will. If basin is considered a relax agent sufficient of being free than it must also be assumed that organization officials, also free agents, are also capable of being free.One care that accompanies free will is moral responsibility. Ultimately, this is what this entire incase centers on. Is it right for the political relation to take in the first-rate earlier conjuring trick acts a rush along driving aversion? This question will explored further as it relates to free will as well as how it relates to in- soulfulness identity and see tree trunk ideas. The government does not have the right to accept the fine introductory to the speed driving offense. Whether or not it is cognize that tooshie will speed push back tomorrow is not re e rattling(prenominal)y the push through in this case.The issue is that the government should not accept that a psyche is going to commit a offensive and accept a fine for it before it occurs unless preferably the government should rely on their sense of free will in order to stop the offensive from happening in the first place. The capacity for the government to have free will also representation that the government has a moral responsibility to orderliness to ensure that John does not speed drive tomorrow. Further, if John is going to leave forever after(prenominal) he speed drives anyway, is it really necessary to accept the fine and hope that this avengement deters John in the succeeding(a)?The sound judgement body principle emphasizes that all human beings have a physical body as well as the capacity to approximate, witness and remember. This idea is connected to the idea of free will because human beings go beyond their biolegitimate characteristics to make up creatures who want certain things, hate certain things and think about certain things in different ways. Therefore, there is a scientific reason that can let off why John whitethorn choose to speed tomorrow just as there is a scientific reason why the government may choose to accept the fine before the offence.Similarly, there are also inbred reasons why these choices may be made that have to a greater extent(prenominal) to do with feelings and thoughts than bio analytical processes. This is the heart of Descartes famous phrase, I think, therefore I am. In other words, the way that human beings choose to operate and conduct themselves are steer results of the ability to think. This brings up a very important point with regard s to punish John for a upcoming thus fart. Perhaps John will use his read/write head to decide that his moral responsibility entails his decision to not speed after all.If John decides that his capacity for free will obligates him to refrain from fastness, then the government would be wrong in their acceptance of a fine before the crime was committed. Finally, philosophical behaviorists believe that human beings rely on their minds to behave in response to their physical milieu. If this is the case, then John may slake trade his mind about focal ratio, but more likely John will go forward and speed in response to the physical environment that real a fine for a future crime.In other words, John will go ahead and speed because he had already been punished for the crime so nothing was stopping him from doing it. below personal identity theories, Thomas Reid suggests that just because human beings have the capacity to remember until nowts does not average that these even ts happened to them. Further, he suggests that if human beings cannot remember something that happened a calendar week ago, does this mean they have become another person?This has direct relevance to this case because it can be assumed that if the government knows someone is planning to commit a crime they can get the punishment out of the way before the crime is even committed. This brings up a larger issue. Will punishing humans before they commit a crime genuinely deter them from that future crime or will it maturate a drastic change in society based on the notion that if punishment has already been served then the crime is an accepted part of society?While it is certainly logical to conclude that punishing someone before the crime occurs may produce a safer society, it is also logical to conclude that this type of justice system will create a crime laden untrusting society. For example, if the government finds out that John will be speeding in order to find his following(a ) victim to murder they may lock him in prison before the crime can occur. This will, conceivably, produce a safer society.However, it will, at the same time, create a society where human beings accept criminal practise take into accountd that punishment is handed down before the crime. Ultimately, the government has no right to punish John for a speeding offense that will occur tomorrow. individualised identity is important here because it provides an outlet for John to make a different decision and attend the posted speed limit after all. In the end, the government could hand down a fine for a future speeding offense, but would this truly deter any future crime?The approximately logical answer is no because without punishing the mind of the criminal, then the punishment ultimately kernel very little. The capacity to have free will means that John is unlikely to change his behavior even if he is punished. Further, just because John will disappear after he speeds does not mean he ceases to exist just because this government can no longer see him. John will detain to exist in another place and his mind will ensure him that if he pays his fine for speeding then that offense will be accepted and he will be welcome to speed whenever he wants to.According to the idea of free will, the government would be more successful if they were to teach John why he should not speed and provide him with compelling reasons to refrain from doing so. Johns internal human desire to please those in endorsement would win out thus being more effective in curbing the potential for speeding behavior. Finally, free will does not mean John is allowed to speed nor does it mean that the government can punish John before he speeds. It does mean that John is free to drive wherever and whenever he wants to but the government is free to punish him if he does not obey the rules of the road.