So which is the ultimate cause, in your terminology - A or B? Given they've been falling since the beginning of time, I'm curious where you are proposing the 'responsibility' barrier that you mentioned earlier - the one that people assume.
Neither. I thought that was obvious.
That's just the problem, isn't it? What works for you might not be so effective as a policy.
Perhaps. I certainly don't think that's the case.
Practically? We imprison them because we can prove that they committed criminal acts. For some crimes, the intention to commit that crime is important (or it becomes reclassified as another crime). For others, intention is irrelevant. But we don't imprison many people just for intending to commit a crime, and generally for less time than if they'd successfully committed the crime.
Lol ! Intention is never irrelevant. If you put two murderess on trial and one of them did it because he simply wanted to while the other did it because someone drugged him, do you think they're gonna be judged the same way?
Regarding Harris, he's not really a consequentalist.
Take the following thought experiment, there's 5 people dying in a hospital. Each one of them needs an organ transplant. In the waiting room there's a healthy person who's going in for surgery. In this situation, wouldn't a consequentalist argue that it would be moral to remove 5 organs from the guy who was in surgery and give them to the 5 guys dying? After all there's a net gain of 4 lives. That, is, I think, pure consequentalism. Unless I am wrong about what consequentalism means. Please correct if I'm wrong.
Anyway, I don't think that's moral and neither does Harris. You have to look at the big picture. Do we really want to live in a society where you can go into surgery and all of sudden people are removing your internal organs? Woudn't that ultimately cause much more harm to society ? Of course it would.
That's the key: we've created them. Just like we've created blame.
Sure, we've also created gods and science fiction. But some of our creations map onto reality and others don't.
Just because you throw away the concept of blame, it doesn't mean that you have to forget about causality.
If person A rapes person B, it really was person A who raped person B and as such, the rapist needs to be dealt with and at no point do you have to pretend like the rapist really is the conscious author of their thoughts and actions.
If no-one deserves respect or fairness, and we have no reward in the afterlife, what reason is there to act morally rather than fill one's pockets at others' expense? Why should one care about the rest of the world?
I'm sorry but that is a really stupid fucking question.
First of all, let´s say that all of a sudden you realize that free will is an illusion ( I think you realized that a long time ago but whatever), would you start to behave differently? Would that realization make you an asshole? Would you stop caring about others? Do you really think so? Think about that for a moment.
Secondly what's moral about acting in a certain way in hopes of getting a reward after you're dead? Like, seriously? And yet theists claim that atheists have no morals, right..