[coldtea]

>In other words that there was literally no such thing as free will. Ought we now simply drop all consequences for crime or asocial behavior in general, because the people engaging in such literally cannot stop themselves?

If we had prove that "there was literally no such thing as free will" then the question would be moot - as it didn't matter whether we "ought" or "ought not" "drop all consequences for crime or asocial behavior in general".

We'd do it or not do it, without any say or free will on the matter. Even our meta discussion about it (e.g. its moral significance) wouldn't be made due to free will, and would be irrelevant to us doing what we end up doing.

You can't disprove free will and still be concerned of what you should do morally or strategically etc, as if its your own mind to make about it.

Or rather you can (still be concerned) but not your concern will in any way matter: it would be an automatic concern.

Note also that, in regards to crime statistics, without free will, it doensn't matter whether we drop "all consequences" or not. People will going to do or not do crime anyway, as they would have had anyway, as there's no free will to deter them.

[q-big]

> You can't disprove free will and still be concerned of what you should do morally or strategically etc, as if its your own mind to make about it.

The same as for free will can be said about God and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[coldtea]

Not sure what you mean. I'm not making any religious claim.

In a universe without free will, you do what you're already set (by a causuality chain) to do. This is simply physics and basic axiomatic logic, no God or 9gag Spaghetti Monster memes need apply.