Familial Transmission of Personality Is Higher Than Shown in Typical Studies

Regarding the second - see my comment.

At least in the western world, most crimes require fault and mens rea. Those require someone being able to make a informed choice, which means having free will. If there is (actually) no choice, or the choice was based on faulty information processing (aka actual insanity), then therefore there is no fault and no mens rea.

The underlying belief (philosophically) is one cannot be good or evil if one cannot comprehend a choice or it's ramifications, or in fact actually effectively choose between options due to a lack of knowledge and independent agency.

Interestingly, this is why the 'original sin' in Christian mythology was eating the apple from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. [https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-0-3....]

So philosophically, before that point, there was no 'good' or 'evil' because humans didn't know of such things, therefore were just acting. Regardless of what they did, they were innocent, because they were incapable of being anything else. After that, everything they did had such knowledge as a factor, and were no longer innocent - because they could choose.

So, for example, if I murder someone in cold blood (aka rational/thinking/choosing), that is 1st degree murder. One of the most serious crimes in any society.

However, if I murder my spouse because I found they betrayed me right in front of me and lose my mind (literally can't think straight, and react instinctively without being able to think or plan anything), most locations will consider me not guilty by reason of insanity, and let me go. [https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/temporary_insanity]

This is already a great example of the problem, as MANY folks try to claim insanity already after getting caught when they are not actually insane.

Another example is if I accidentally kill someone without knowing such a thing was a possibility. For example, I'm out hunting in the woods. I see a deer, and (as far as I know) legally shoot it. However, it turns out that was actually a human dressed in a very convincing deer costume, and I had no way of knowing this was the case. Most of the time, I would be charged with no crime, or worst case likely negligent homicide.

As per the Supreme Court of Iowa, "In order to be an excuse and defense for a criminal act, the person accused, and who claims [temporary] insanity as a defense, must prove that the crime charged was caused by mental disease or unsoundness which dethroned, overcame, or swayed her reason and judgment with respect to that act, which destroyed her power rationally to comprehend the nature and consequences of that act.”

If we assert that people actually act based on their nature/upbringing and have little to no rational control over their actions in fact (aka no free will), then does it not follow that no one actually has a choice, and therefore it makes no sense to actually punish anyone for anything they do? Since philosophically, without the ability to rationally actually choose their actions, they cannot be good or bad - they just are.

And if we punish people based on who they 'just are', that opens another can of very nasty worms, and likely a lot of serious evil will result.

We have poor financial habits that occasionally hint (I won't go so far as to say that they "threaten") at upending our lifestyle. Just having "more money" doesn't protect. Our habits would, if not kept in check, squander nearly anything. We are, in many ways, our own worst enemies. I've struggled to recognize this my entire adult life.

I think when someone starts speaking as you just have, it has as much to do with social posturing as anything. You have to say that, to show everyone else how special and empathetic you are. You understand the plight of the poor, that it isn't fair and they're "just like anyone else". That if some windfall dropped into their laps, they too would be rich forever, because that's how wealth works. And when you do this, you see everyone clapping and murmuring to each other about how enlightened you are, and you get off on that.

There are better habits. The wealthy tend to have more of them (many more), and the poor never develop those at all. Mostly, I think, because if they have these habits for any length of time, it quickly becomes incorrect to refer to them as poor. These habits can't protect against all misfortunes, but they protect against some and they mitigate the rest. And when you teach people that these things aren't true, you're doing them a disservice. You're robbing them of the one thing that might change their lives. It's both bizarre and cruel.

What does "deserve" have to do with anything? We're not in kindergarten, this is the real world. If she is capable of being a satisfactory astronaut, then give her the job. And if she is not, then don't give her the job. Whatever benefit it is you think the job bestows, whether that is a high salary or some level of prestige matters not at all.

This isn't hypothetical, we're starting to see this as a real problem in professions where the success of our country and government (and for everyone who lives within it) depends on our ability to ignore asinine "deserves" arguments.