Do we have a choice?

Consider two scenarios:

1. I intentionally and maliciously press a button to cause two trains to collide
2. I intentionally and maliciously *do not* press a button, resulting in two trains colliding

Why base our ethics on the distinction of pressing a button / not pressing a button? We don't value that. We value the result (avoiding train collision), so our moral distinction should be based on the *consequence*, not on the perception of whether a choice was made.

Do we really have the ability to choose? Should our answer to this question affect the way we punish crimes?

If we accept determinism, then our choices are already made, and there is no altering them. Does that mean we aren't responsible for our actions?

Another way of looking at it: Our brain is a decision-making machine. Input goes in, and a decision comes out deterministically. The brain can also be reprogrammed so it makes different decisions based on different inputs. We punish destructive actions because the result is that the brain's decision is influenced against deciding to take the destructive action.

Why does intent matter, if we didn't even have a real choice about having the intent? If we are not ultimately responsible for the intent, then how do we justify factoring the intent into the punishment?

Intent matters because a person who decides to act with intentional malice is more dangerous, and more difficult to correct, than a person who unintentionally causes harm (assuming it wasn't out of negligence). So if we look at it in terms of the *consequences*, we could try to prevent the accidental harm by either punishing, or by educating. Both might have a similar effect in terms of preventing the person from causing harm in the future (although one could argue that imprisonment may influence a person to intentionally commit crimes in the future). But education produces far less suffering than imprisonment.

On the other hand, if we attempt to educate the malicious offender instead of punishing them, we achieve nothing because the crime was committed intentionally and with full knowledge. Rehabilitation or punishment in this case makes sense, in terms of the consequence of doing so, since the consequence of not rehabilitating or punishing is that the offender is likely to reoffend. So the suffering caused by rehabilitation / punishment is justified by the consequence.*

Laws and ethical principles should be based on what matters to us. Whether or not a button was pushed does not matter to us. What matters to us is the consequence in terms of lives & overall suffering, and the likelihood of it happening again. So I would argue that a reults-based ethical philosophy (consequentialism) makes more sense than an action-based ethical philosophy.


* I've said "rehabilitation or punishment" because it's not clear whether punishment actually has a positive consequence in terms of the offender's likelihood of reoffending. Many have argued that, if anything, it has a negative effect. Although we must of course consider the wider effect of deterrence for people other than the offender.