Sigh,,,,,,
Have the adherents of the theory of free will the right to punish? ......If he is punished, he is punished for having preferred the worse reasons to the better; which he must therefore have known.
And here one calls "free will" to one's aid; it is pure willfulness which is supposed to decide, an impulse is supposed to enter within which motive plays no part, in which the deed, arising out of nothing, occurs as a miracle.
It is this supposed wilfulness, in a case in which wilfulness ought not to reign, which is punished; the rational intelligence, which knows law, prohibition and comand, ought to have permitted no choice
Thus the offender is punished because he employs 'free will,' that is to say, because he acted without a reason where he ought to have acted in accordance with reasons.
The presupposition that for an offence to be punishable its perpetrator must have intentionally acted contrary to his intelligence - it is precisely this presupposition which is annulled by the assumption of 'free will.'
.......these are the primary thoughts after coffee. Good theory against theory of free will.
Thank you, Zep.
waiting