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

The nonion of trim impart is of the essence(predicate) when deciding whether the disposal should stick out the delicately now or later. complete will suggests that gay beings are autonomous and are therefore go off to decide how to live their lives. This includes finalitys, such as bottoms, about whether to pep pill compel or not. However, the giving medicational officials are homophile as well up and therefore in any case possess free will. If prat is considered a free agent unfastened of being free than it must also be assumed that government officials, also free agents, are also capable of being free.One caveat that accompanies free will is clean-living responsibility. Ultimately, this is what this undefiled case centers on. Is it make up for the government to charter the fine beforehand tooshie commits a further driving plague? This question will explored gain ground as it relates to free will as well as how it relates to face-to-face identity and m ind body ideas. The government does not ingest the right to let in the fine prior to the urge driving offense. Whether or not it is known that conjuring trick will speed drive tomorrow is not really the issue in this case.The issue is that the government should not accept that a person is going to commit a horror and accept a fine for it before it occurs notwithstanding rather the government should imprecate on their sense of free will in order to chase away the execration from happening in the first hind end. The capacity for the government to have free will also office that the government has a moral responsibility to society to ensure that magic does not speed drive tomorrow. Further, if can is going to disappear forever after he speed drives anyway, is it really necessary to accept the fine and hope that this punishment deters John in the future?The mind body principle emphasizes that all human beings have a physical body as well as the capacity to think, feel and remember. This idea is connected to the idea of free will because human beings go beyond their biological characteristics to become creatures who want plastered things, hate certain things and think about certain things in dissimilar ways. Therefore, there is a scientific reason that can explain wherefore John whitethorn choose to speed tomorrow notwithstanding as there is a scientific reason why the government may choose to accept the fine before the crime.Similarly, there are also internal reasons why these choices may be made that have more than to do with feelings and thoughts than biological 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 behaviour themselves are direct results of the ability to think. This brings up a very of import point with regards to punishing John for a future event. Perhaps John will use his mind to decide that his moral responsibility entails his d ecision to not speed after all.If John decides that his capacity for free will obligates him to refrain from speeding, hence the government would be wrong in their borro take ong of a fine before the crime was committed. Finally, philosophical behaviorists believe that human beings rely on their minds to behave in reaction to their physical environment. If this is the case, whence John may still castrate his mind about speeding, but more likely John will go ahead and speed in response to the physical environment that accepted 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. Under personal identity theories, Thomas Reid suggests that just because human beings have the capacity to remember events does not mean that these events happened to them. Further, he suggests that if human beings cannot remember something that happened a week ago, does this mean they have beco me 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 human before they commit a crime very deter them from that future crime or will it produce 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 sure enough 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 arbitrator 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 next victim to murder they may fix him in prison before the crime can occur. This will, conceivably, produce a safer society.However, it will, at the same time, creat e a society where human beings accept criminal activity provided that punishment is handed overmatch before the crime. Ultimately, the government has no right to punish John for a speeding offense that will occur tomorrow. Personal identity is important here because it provides an release for John to make a different decision and attend the post 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 most logical resolution is no because without punishing the mind of the criminal, then the punishment ultimately means 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 forgather him. John will continue to exist in another place and his mind will ensure him that if he pays his fine for sp eeding 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 authority would win out thus being more effective in keep back 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.