1 upvotes, 1 direct replies (showing 1)
View submission: Which side shoulders the burden of proof?
Broadly speaking, we usually push the burden of proof onto the group whose position has a more profound impact.
Generally speaking, the burden of proof is on the government to prove you commit a crime largely because most people don’t want to send an innocent person to prison or execution. I know there are countless failures but the principle assigns the burden in one direction for good reason.
In society, free will is assumed and is the basis for for virtually everything including our economy and criminal justice system. Given the implications of determinism, the burden falls on the determinist. If someone is not responsible for their actions, criminal justice falls apart along with most other things.
A scientific level of proof would in fact not be adequate. It would need to be greater given the massive implications.
Comment by diogenesthehopeful at 04/09/2024 at 16:08 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
I was with you until I got to:
A scientific level of proof would in fact not be adequate.
Science proved the earth revolved around the sun and the industrial revolution took off just because pope Leo wasn't happy that Easter was drifting down the calendar. Considering AI, it is debatable that we are better off because of the industrial revolution but the point is that we can still choose to be better as a species as we are not officially doomed yet.