Free will 2---how come....

[BIG D]

how come most murderers are MALE???!!!..is it because males have LESS free will, or are males chemically more violent/aggressive???

 

[oogagoogaboo]

i dont necessarily have a perfect answer but it may be from that Y chromosome that we have in us...

 

[Thesavorofpan]

how come most murderers are MALE???!!!..is it because males have LESS free will, or are males chemically more violent/aggressive???

I'm gonna take a wild guess at this and I bet I'm probably wrong here, but what if its cause Female express their emotions more than males do. So all that emotions in us just keeps building and building up and then it just breaks and results can range from murder to suicide, to a mid life crisis. But yeah thats just mytwo cents.

 

[Orbital]

Having read up on this it seems that this has to to with evolutionary psychology. To keep it short:
(these high crime rates are specifically young men)

Young men who had a mechanical function to be jealous and very competitive have had more chance to reproduce. This leads to committing crimes in today's society, especially when you are at the lower end of an economical hierarchy. Many other factors, like how boys are raised, also contribute to this.

There is a lot more on this, but this is the short version.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Males of all species tend to be more agressive.
However Murders by females are increasing in western countries.

women make very agressive soldiers, who are more likely to defend to the last.

 

[BIG D]

I'm gonna take a wild guess at this and I bet I'm probably wrong here, but what if its cause Female express their emotions more than males do. So all that emotions in us just keeps building and building up and then it just breaks and results can range from murder to suicide, to a mid life crisis. But yeah thats just mytwo cents.

so it's the emotions?? so no free will?

 

[BIG D]

Having read up on this it seems that this has to to with evolutionary psychology. To keep it short:
(these high crime rates are specifically young men)

Young men who had a mechanical function to be jealous and very competitive have had more chance to reproduce. This leads to committing crimes in today's society, especially when you are at the lower end of an economical hierarchy. Many other factors, like how boys are raised, also contribute to this.

There is a lot more on this, but this is the short version.

I almost totally agree, except, what about the murderers who are NOT at the lower end??

 

[BIG D]

Males of all species tend to be more agressive.
However Murders by females are increasing in western countries.

women make very agressive soldiers, who are more likely to defend to the last.

so is there free will or not??

 

[BIG D]

Having read up on this it seems that this has to to with evolutionary psychology. To keep it short:
(these high crime rates are specifically young men)

Young men who had a mechanical function to be jealous and very competitive have had more chance to reproduce. This leads to committing crimes in today's society, especially when you are at the lower end of an economical hierarchy. Many other factors, like how boys are raised, also contribute to this.

There is a lot more on this, but this is the short version.

I will add, no one can disagree with your point of the males at the lower end of the EH...

 

[Storm]

how come most murderers are MALE???!!!..is it because males have LESS free will, or are males chemically more violent/aggressive???

Yeah. Turns out only women actually have free will and immortal souls. That's why we've been historically oppressed - men are just jealous of their spiritual superiors.

Seriously, what the hell? How does free will or the lack of it change the answer to this question?

 

[Man of Faith]

Because God made them different than women. They were designed to be the protectors. Their brains are different, they think differently. They are better at compartmentalizing their actions. Hitler compartmentalized his extermination work and made it seperate from his home life where he treated his mistress well. Men are out on the streets more, they like boys toys, guns, not dolls and vanitys. Of course that isn't the reason they murder, which is due to sin, that is why more men murder than women.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

so is there free will or not??

Of course there is, The two things are not connected.
We are all influenced by thousands of things, but none of them force a choice on us.

we can not opt out of our own personal responsibility for the choices we make.

 

[BIG D]

Of course there is, The two things are not connected.
We are all influenced by thousands of things, but none of them force a choice on us.

we can not opt out of our own personal responsibility for the choices we make.

if that is true, how come there are way more males committing the sin of murder???how are males 'influenced' differently???are you saying some have less free will???why are males different???

 

[BIG D]

Because God made them different than women. They were designed to be the protectors. Their brains are different, they think differently. They are better at compartmentalizing their actions. Hitler compartmentalized his extermination work and made it seperate from his home life where he treated his mistress well. Men are out on the streets more, they like boys toys, guns, not dolls and vanitys. Of course that isn't the reason they murder, which is due to sin, that is why more men murder than women.

why the HUGE difference in the sin of murder rates???

 

[Eliot Wild]

With all due respect, I certainly mean no insult to the OP or its author, but why are you operating under the assumption that the act of 'murder' is indicative of a lack of freewill?

This is at least the second thread I've noticed recently that attempts to draw a correlation between statistical estimations for murder rates among specific groups and the plausibility and/or verifiable existence of freewill, or lack thereof.

No offense, but I find this proposed correlation to be spurious.

Actually, 'spurious' is the wrong word in my opinion. That would imply the statistical results are misapplied and/or misleading. However, I just don't see any connection between the two items, murder and freewill, regardless of whether the statistics are verified and determined to be correctly applied or not.

What does murder have to do with freewill? Why is there an assumption that murder rates, if confirmed, bear one way or the other on the plausability of freewill? Does anyone really believe that people who commit murder are not acting freely? If so, what the hell is our criminal court system for? Is something else controlling the actions of murderers in your opinion? If so, many of our civic and legal institutions are meaningless then, right?

Personally, I am torn over the plausability of freewill. I have a hard time reconciling the conceivability of freely-acting agents in a causal universe. But the willingness to commit murder seems to be irrelevant to the broader debate. Scottish people wear more plaid than others, statistically speaking. Does that means Scotts lack freewill? French people drink more wine than other groups, on average; does that mean they lack freewill? Russians drink more vodka than any other nationality; does that mean they lack the freewill to choose Bourbon or Scotch whiskey?

Tendencies to engage in particular behavior, even maliciously violent and cruel behavior, doesn't bear on the larger argument about freewill. It merely indicates that certain groups are more likely to freely make poorer decisions than others.

Why do more men commit murder than women? Because men are more likely to freely choose to be overly aggressive dirtbags relying more often on physical force as a means of dealing with personal problems. It is merely an indicator of flawed personal preferences, not an indicator of one's ability to actually have a functional preference.

 

[BIG D]

With all due respect, I certainly mean no insult to the OP or its author, but why are you operating under the assumption that the act of 'murder' is indicative of a lack of freewill?

This is at least the second thread I've noticed recently that attempts to draw a correlation between statistical estimations for murder rates among specific groups and the plausibility and/or verifiable existence of freewill, or lack thereof.

No offense, but I find this proposed correlation to be spurious.

Actually, 'spurious' is the wrong word in my opinion. That would imply the statistical results are misapplied and/or misleading. However, I just don't see any connection between the two items, murder and freewill, regardless of whether the statistics are verified and determined to be correctly applied or not.

What does murder have to do with freewill? Why is there an assumption that murder rates, if confirmed, bear one way or the other on the plausability of freewill? Does anyone really believe that people who commit murder are not acting freely? If so, what the hell is our criminal court system for? Is something else controlling the actions of murderers in your opinion? If so, many of our civic and legal institutions are meaningless then, right?

Personally, I am torn over the plausability of freewill. I have a hard time reconciling the conceivability of freely-acting agents in a causal universe. But the willingness to commit murder seems to be irrelevant to the broader debate. Scottish people wear more plaid than others, statistically speaking. Does that means Scotts lack freewill? French people drink more wine than other groups, on average; does that mean they lack freewill? Russians drink more vodka than any other nationality; does that mean they lack the freewill to choose Bourbon or Scotch whiskey?

Tendencies to engage in particular behavior, even maliciously violent and cruel behavior, doesn't bear on the larger argument about freewill. It merely indicates that certain groups are more likely to freely make poorer decisions than others.

Why do more men commit murder than women? Because men are more likely to freely choose to be overly aggressive dirtbags relying more often on physical force as a means of dealing with personal problems. It is merely an indicator of flawed personal preferences, not an indicator of one's ability to actually have a functional preference.

wearing plaid is not considered a sin or violent response so the analogy is strange...my question is, if there is free will, how come males have less free will than females--much, much less-- to committing the sin of murder??.aren't males NATURALLY/CHEMICALLY more violent??...when they are hopelessly frustrated and angry, they are going to try to stop that mental pain ANYWAY possible...ever read about serial murderers??...why do they kill??...for the excitement/high/rush.....why are they more likely to 'freely' choose violence???

 

[Eliot Wild]

wearing plaid is not considered a sin or violent response so the analogy is strange...my question is, if there is free will, how come males have less free will than females--much, much less-- to committing the sin of murder??.aren't males NATURALLY/CHEMICALLY more violent??...when they are hopelessly frustrated and angry, they are going to try to stop that mental pain ANYWAY possible...ever read about serial murderers??...why do they kill??...for the excitement/high/rush.....why are they more likely to 'freely' choose violence???

Again, I ask, what makes you assume that murder is NOT a free choice? People are just as free to choose 'sin or violence' as an alternative to love and peace, as people are free to choose plaid over pastels. The analogy is only strange if we assume that murder is NOT an act of a free-thinking, free-willing agent. The comparison is only strange if we assume that sin is less of a free choice than the alternative.

You ask how come males have less freewill than females. To me, this assumes they are not acting on freewill when they murder. Why this assumption? Why do you believe that an act of sin, or an act that is particluarly violent in nature, is not a free choice?

It seems you must first distinguish the act of murder as one that is not freely chosen before you can question whether certain groups lack as much freewill as another based on a statistical analysis of behavior which indicates a propensity for those specific acts. Without that, the original post and original question is meaningless, it's moot, or so it seems to me.

 

[Orbital]

ever read about serial murderers??...why do they kill??...for the excitement/high/rush.....why are they more likely to 'freely' choose violence???

Most murders are between people that know each other very well (family memembers, close friends, etc.), these serial killers that randomly go out and kill are very rare and usually have some sort of neurological disorder.
This is why I used the word 'crimes' in my first post. Murders are a little different.

I would have to sort of agree with Eliot, I do not quite understand the connections you are making with free will.

 

[Eliot Wild]

. . . ever read about serial murderers??...why do they kill??...for the excitement/high/rush.....why are they more likely to 'freely' choose violence???

I certainly have no idea what drives serial kilers to murder. However, as a mere guess, I would say there are various contributing factors, ranging from the psycho-pathological to environmental and perhaps even biochemical.

I am not a psychologist nor a human behavioral specialist. And again, I don't mean to undervalue the relevance of your question, but while any of these factors may work to press their influence upon human behavior, I still fail to see in your reasoning and questioning any conclusive proof that actors, whether they be serial killers or pacifists, are not free to ignore or resist the urge to murder that springs from the psychological and environmental weight of these contributing factors.

We are each and every one of us faced with countless numbers of choices every single day, such as, 'Do I have coffee or orange juice with breakfast?' . . . and . . . 'Do I take the freeway or the bypass to get downtown to work today?" . . . and . . . "Do I stop off at happy hour for a couple vodka-tonics on the way home or do I go a homicidal killing spree at the mall?"

We may have certain factors pressing on us to make poor decisions, to choose stupid options over smarter ones, but we are free, both male and female, to ignore those influences.

We are not a 'slave' to unwilled behavior, to internal and/or external forces. We are not FORCED to murder. And I daresay, if there are those out there, serial killers or otherwise, who cannot control their actions and are 'slaves' to influencial factors, then they are not representative of 'typical' agents. They constitute the 'abnormal'.

 

[BIG D]

Again, I ask, what makes you assume that murder is NOT a free choice? People are just as free to choose 'sin or violence' as an alternative to love and peace, as people are free to choose plaid over pastels. The analogy is only strange if we assume that murder is NOT an act of a free-thinking, free-willing agent. The comparison is only strange if we assume that sin is less of a free choice than the alternative.

You ask how come males have less freewill than females. To me, this assumes they are not acting on freewill when they murder. Why this assumption? Why do you believe that an act of sin, or an act that is particluarly violent in nature, is not a free choice?

It seems you must first distinguish the act of murder as one that is not freely chosen before you can question whether certain groups lack as much freewill as another based on a statistical analysis of behavior which indicates a propensity for those specific acts. Without that, the original post and original question is meaningless, it's moot, or so it seems to me.

ok, my simple question is, how come there is a huge difference in murder rates between males and females?? and/or, how come you have a huge difference in murder rates between certain groups of people and the areas where the murders are committed?