The Democrat Party Hates America

[BigMike]

I appreciate your perspective on the importance of honesty, openness, and a genuine desire to improve. You’re right that addressing the core issues—dishonesty, fear of judgment, and deeply ingrained behaviors—could help us move toward a healthier society. However, from my point of view, these behaviors and motivations are themselves the result of prior conditioning, social environments, and external influences. What you describe as “taking responsibility” or “admitting wrongdoing” is, in this framework, simply one more result of the influences that shaped us—environment, upbringing, culture, and even genetics.

The idea isn’t that people choose dishonesty or judgment from a place of total independence. They are shaped by the systems and conditions they’re born into. So, if we want to see widespread honesty and openness, we need to address the root conditions that generate these behaviors.

What I’m saying is that the cycles of wrongdoing or “misbehavior” aren’t a result of individuals freely choosing to ignore responsibility. They’re determined by external causes—societal norms, cultural pressures, past experiences—and the solutions, therefore, lie in reshaping those causes. By focusing on the broader systems, we’re essentially “stacking the deck” in favor of the honesty, understanding, and positive behaviors you’re advocating.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I took the following quote from The Psychic Health of Jesus, by Walter E. Bundy, Macmillian 1922. In this passage he examines the writing of Binet-Sanglé'. I submit this only to illustrate that Big Mike, and all those who resolve to perceive and to think in these terms, derive from an intellectual movement with which Nietzsche was, of course, associated (Largely a German intellectual movement). It is, to say the least, interesting to examine these trends of thought and the intense stresses, and the tragedies, that developed during this axial and critical time.)

The reason I submit this is to indicate that, as things have progressed, religious belief and the sort of inner experience that religious experience, has come to be regarded as signs of pathology. One could not disassociate the general views of Big Mike from that of an *applied psychology*. But I do not mean this in any sense as a personal affront. It is simply a fact about these materialist-biological ideas.

I would not say, however, that pathology is not a factor, except my general idea is that most human beings, simply by being human, and simply by being victims of environment and circumstance, all exhibit, in degrees, mental aberrations. It is that which defines the human being!

What I find interesting is how rational and coherent many people seem -- I refer to philosophers for example who have sets of ideas that are presented in such coherent form and yet, when examined, seem to encapsulate neurotic elements. And during times of intense cultural and social stress the pressure increases and -- in my view -- people exteriorize neurosis and yet, often, sound totally coherent and convincing. (We need look no farther than the upheavals over the last 10 years or so among the opinonators whose views and ideas are presented to us through electronic media.)

The issue (this is my own area of interest) is Who is actually sane? Or to state it more plainly Who is not neurotic? or driven by unbalanced or degenerate ideas? And what is the *right* or the *correct* ideational platform to have? And Who has it?

The very notion of wellness, balance and sanity is today, in truth, up in the air.

(Excuse the musings but the following quote, and the reason I read such things, had to be explained).

Before examining the contents of Binet-Sanglé's work it is necessary to state briefly his general view of religion and his philosophical position in order to comprehend the ease with which he pronounces such harsh judgments against Jesus. In his atheistic confession he says that belief in either God or devil seems to him absurd, and, since the world at present is enjoying the age of reason, he is completely delivered from all need of faith. "No religious idea seems to me to merit the inquiry of an intelligent person". Religious devotion is a mark of psychic degeneration. Philosophically Binet-Sanglé is a determinist and materialist. Psychology is merely a branch of physiology and biology. There is no ego, no free will; both are delusions. "The free will, the spontaneity of the ego, autonomous volition are only illusions."

"I is only a word. It designates the conscious element of our being, infamous element, governed by subconsciousness, the organism, and the outside world......Man is a machine partially endowed with consciousness; and he imagines that he has within himself the power and direction of his acts, but who in reality is acted upon by all the forces of the universe. Irresponsible for his constitution, his temperament, his character and the environment in which hazard has placed him, man is the plaything of events as the planet on which he lives is the plaything of the stars. All acts, mental, muscular and moral, draw their energy from the depths of the organism and are as rigorously determined as the rebounding of a ball thrown against a wall. Ethics has only an illusory efficacy. It should be replaced by eugenics and social hygiene. The ignoramus, the hypocrite, the liar and the criminal are as little responsible for their feelings and acts as the electric machine is responsible for its sparks and flashes, the injuries and deaths which it can cause."

[BigMike]

Alexis' refusal to answer my questions has earned them a prime spot on my ever-expanding ignore list. Application accepted, position granted.

[seeds]

Philosophically Binet-Sanglé is a determinist and materialist. Psychology is merely a branch of physiology and biology. There is no ego, no free will; both are delusions. "The free will, the spontaneity of the ego, autonomous volition are only illusions."...
..."The ignoramus, the hypocrite, the liar and the criminal are as little responsible for their feelings and acts as the electric machine is responsible for its sparks and flashes, the injuries and deaths which it can cause."

And there you pretty much have - in a nutshell - the status of humankind if BM's take on determinism is true.

Not to mention the fact that the proponents of determinism (such as BM) fail to explain how and why the universe was imbued with a deterministic nature to begin with? Never mind how and why it (the universe) exists in such an unfathomable level of mechanistic order?

Alexis' refusal to answer my questions has earned them a prime spot on my ever-expanding ignore list. Application accepted, position granted.

Ah, now I understand why BM has not been responding to me, he must have put me on his "ever-expanding ignore list."

I did not see that coming, did you, AJ?

Nor can I fathom why?

Apparently, BM doesn't like having his theory challenged.
_______

[Alexis Jacobi]

Alexis' refusal to answer my questions has earned them a prime spot on my ever-expanding ignore list. Application accepted, position granted.

That is a bit of a maniacal approach, no? Your attitude contradicts your super-conciliatory tone.

If it must be stated I have my own “agenda” and reasons for participating here.

The “questions” you asked were really more statements about your own position. And yes, of course, those statements are certainly possible (and necessary) within the framework you work within. They flow from your basic tenets.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Not to mention the fact that the proponents of determinism (such as BM) fail to explain how and why the universe was imbued with a deterministic nature to begin with? Never mind how and why it (the universe) exists in such an unfathomable level of mechanistic order?

I might mention that you have convinced me that I’ll surely need to add another full week to The 12-Week Email Course to further develop the issue of the “unfathomable level of mechanistic order”.

The Work never ceases!

[seeds]

Not to mention the fact that the proponents of determinism (such as BM) fail to explain how and why the universe was imbued with a deterministic nature to begin with? Never mind how and why it (the universe) exists in such an unfathomable level of mechanistic order?

I might mention that you have convinced me that I’ll surely need to add another full week to The 12-Week Email Course to further develop the issue of the “unfathomable level of mechanistic order”.

The Work never ceases!

As your agent, might I suggest that instead of a one-time fee for a set 12-week (now 13-week) email course, how about you simply charge a reasonable monthly fee to those who want to gain access to your deeper wisdom?

You know, kind of like how ChatGPT is free to the general rabble, but if you want the good stuff, you need to sign up for a monthly/yearly paid subscription plan.

That way there's no telling how large your group of steady paying subscribers will grow.

Whaddya think?

(See, there's a good reason for why you're paying me [up front] 15% of your projected [gross] earnings.)
_______

[Alexis Jacobi]

You’re hired!

[Age]

I appreciate your perspective on the importance of honesty, openness, and a genuine desire to improve. You’re right that addressing the core issues—dishonesty, fear of judgment, and deeply ingrained behaviors—could help us move toward a healthier society.

Again, not 'could', but 'will'.

However, from my point of view, these behaviors and motivations are themselves the result of prior conditioning, social environments, and external influences.

It appears I did not make it clear that I already agreed, and could not agree more, with what you say and write here. In fact, to me, the very reason why all of you adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, are dishonest, for example, is because of the way you have all been 'conditioned' to think, and thus to also then behave, in that 'Wrong way'.

What you describe as “taking responsibility” or “admitting wrongdoing” is, in this framework, simply one more result of the influences that shaped us—environment, upbringing, culture, and even genetics.

Just to be clear, to me, 'admitting wrongdoing', is aligned with 'accepting responsibility', and not with 'taking responsibility'.

The idea isn’t that people choose dishonesty or judgment from a place of total independence.

How sure are you of this?

And, does your response here come from 'total independence'?

If no, then your response could be Wrong and/or Incorrect, correct?

They are shaped by the systems and conditions they’re born into.

Does 'shaping' above here mean, or refer to, causing or creating 100%.

So, if we want to see widespread honesty and openness, we need to address the root conditions that generate these behaviors.

Once again,
The third root of not being honest and open is greed and/or selfishness.

The second root is child abuse. That is; if children did not live with abuse, and did not live in an abusive environment, then they would not 'grow up' being dishonest nor closed.

And, the fundamental, and first and main, root of dishonesty and closedness which still exists, (in the days when this is being written), is because of adult human beings continually being dishonest. Which is the main and first reason why 'this, abusive, world/environment/society', still, exists, which is what is continually causing children to keep 'growing up' being Dishonest adult human beings about the Wrong that they and you all do.

Just stop all of the Dishonesty and 'the world' just becomes better, which, naturally, prevent any and all future Wrong doing, from then on.

So, if you adult human beings, REALLY, want to address the root condition that generates all of the Wrong behaviors', in Life, then you all have to, FIRST, start 'accepting responsibility', by being totally Honest about and 'admitting' all of Wrong doings that all of you adult human beings do..

What I’m saying is that the cycles of wrongdoing or “misbehavior” aren’t a result of individuals freely choosing to ignore responsibility.

The very vast majority of what you human beings can do is because you have already been taught/had already learned. And, because you adult human beings are not Truly 'responsible beings', because you have not yet learned how to be, children are not, and also cannot, learn how to be 'Truly responsible' beings.

So, it is not that you human beings are choosing to ignore 'responsibility', human beings in the days when this was being written, have just not yet learned how to be 'fully responsible'. In fact the vast majority, if not all, of you human beings did know the actual difference between 'accepting responsibility' from 'taking responsibility'.

They’re determined by external causes—societal norms, cultural pressures, past experiences—and the solutions, therefore, lie in reshaping those causes.

you keep saying this, BUT if you have absolutely NO ability of 'choosing', then you can do absolutely nothing at all except for 'waiting' until the caused and created by human beings societal norms and cultural pressures also 'change'.

By focusing on the broader systems, we’re essentially “stacking the deck” in favor of the honesty, understanding, and positive behaviors you’re advocating.

I am not sure how this would work.

To me it is just blatantly obvious that if, and when, you adult human beings 'choose' to 'change', for the better, then societal and cultural 'norms' will just naturally change for the better, as well.

[BigMike]

I appreciate your insights and can see we’re touching on a few fundamental differences in perspective. Let me answer your questions clearly.

1. Is my response independent, and could it be wrong?
No, my response isn’t coming from a place of “total independence,” as everything we express is shaped by past experiences, prior conditioning, and the environment we exist in. So, yes, any of my thoughts could be incomplete or incorrect, as they’re all part of a larger network of influences. This aligns with my view that human actions and thoughts are not independently chosen but are products of external causes and influences.

2. Does “shaping” mean causing or creating behavior 100%?
Yes, in this context, “shaping” behavior means that our actions, beliefs, and inclinations are fully caused by various external and internal factors—our upbringing, experiences, cultural norms, biology, and so on. There isn’t room for independent agency in this view, as every thought and action is traceable back to an influencing cause, leaving no space for a purely “free” choice.

3. Would a change in societal norms and pressures just happen naturally if people “choose” to change?
This is a critical point. From my perspective, people don’t freely “choose” to change. Change happens when conditions—social, environmental, or experiential—shift enough to cause a different pattern of thought or behavior. When these influences are modified (for example, through education, social reform, or cultural shifts), behaviors adjust accordingly. What I’m saying is that individual “choices” are themselves outcomes of these changing influences rather than independent actions.

4. Is it possible to stop waiting for causes to change and take action?
The action to bring about change isn’t a matter of “waiting,” but rather of responding to the circumstances in place. If enough factors align—like social awareness, political pressure, or a shift in cultural values—then collective behaviors change as a result. What might appear as “choosing to take action” is actually a natural outcome of these pressures reaching a tipping point. For instance, social movements often arise not from spontaneous individual choices but from accumulated discontent and the right environmental triggers.

5. Can addressing dishonesty and accountability prevent future harm?
Yes, but even the motivation to address dishonesty and take accountability is influenced by external factors—by the values instilled in us, societal expectations, or personal experiences. The shift toward honesty, in this view, is a product of creating environments that discourage dishonest behavior and encourage transparency. When the conditions are right, more people will act in ways we consider responsible or moral, not because of free will, but because the circumstances guide them toward those actions.

In summary, while I respect the emphasis you place on “choosing to take responsibility,” from my perspective, all choices and actions are determined by external causes, and creating positive change is about shifting these underlying causes. This isn’t about passivity but about understanding that change is a process driven by conditions, not independent choices.

[Age]

I appreciate your insights and can see we’re touching on a few fundamental differences in perspective. Let me answer your questions clearly.

1. Is my response independent, and could it be wrong?
No, my response isn’t coming from a place of “total independence,” as everything we express is shaped by past experiences, prior conditioning, and the environment we exist in. So, yes, any of my thoughts could be incomplete or incorrect, as they’re all part of a larger network of influences. This aligns with my view that human actions and thoughts are not independently chosen but are products of external causes and influences.

Of course your views align with what you believe is true.

you would not express views that contradict nor oppose what you believe is true, correct?

And, if what you believe is wrong, and any of "your" thoughts could be incomplete or incorrect, then your view, and belief, that every thing that you express is 'shaped', then the very fact that your past experiences have not been perfect, nor Correct, it would stand to reason that your 'current' beliefs and views here are Not Correct, and thus need improving on.

And, when, and if, you also come to realize where the place of 'total independence' is, exactly, then you will see and know how to improve 'those thoughts', within that head fully, and perfectly.

2. Does “shaping” mean causing or creating behavior 100%?
Yes, in this context, “shaping” behavior means that our actions, beliefs, and inclinations are fully caused by various external and internal factors—our upbringing, experiences, cultural norms, biology, and so on.

So, considering the very fact that you have not had the perfect 'upbringing', "your" thinking 'now' needs improving, and completing, correct?

There isn’t room for independent agency in this view, as every thought and action is traceable back to an influencing cause, leaving no space for a purely “free” choice.

What does some imagined 'purely free choice' have to do with absolutely any thing here?

How do you define the words 'free will', exactly?

3. Would a change in societal norms and pressures just happen naturally if people “choose” to change?
This is a critical point. From my perspective, people don’t freely “choose” to change.

Again why are you using the 'freely' word here for, exactly?

Change happens when conditions—social, environmental, or experiential—shift enough to cause a different pattern of thought or behavior.

But, again, 'change', itself, is always happening, and occuring. 'Change' does not only happen is something else occurs.

When these influences are modified (for example, through education, social reform, or cultural shifts), behaviors adjust accordingly. What I’m saying is that individual “choices” are themselves outcomes of these changing influences rather than independent actions.]

And, as I have been saying, and explaining, here, when adult human beings are living in a society where they do not fear being judged nor punished, then they will become Truly Honest, and Open, in regards to the Wrong that you all do. And, as I have also been saying, and explaining, society, itself, will not become a place where you adults do not judge and punish, until you 'choose' to STOP judging and punishing 'others'.

Also, the very fact that EVERY thought and behavior, Rightly or Wrong, comes from 'past experiences', which, obviously, NONE of you had power nor control over. Therefore, absolutely NONE of you has the 'right' nor 'totally independent's ability to 'judge' another, BECAUSE the ONLY thing you could 'judge' another on is your OWN past experiences, ONLY. And, obviously, NONE of you has had a perfect past experience.

4. Is it possible to stop waiting for causes to change and take action?
The action to bring about change isn’t a matter of “waiting,” but rather of responding to the circumstances in place. If enough factors align—like social awareness, political pressure, or a shift in cultural values—then collective behaviors change as a result.

But why wait for others to change?

Why not just choose to change, for the better, "yourself"?

What might appear as “choosing to take action” is actually a natural outcome of these pressures reaching a tipping point.

If you, really, want to answer 'my questions', then you need to read, and use, 'my words' alone.

For when you replace 'my words', with 'your words', then confusion and misinterpretation ensue. As can be seen above here.

For instance, social movements often arise not from spontaneous individual choices but from accumulated discontent and the right environmental triggers.

Will you provide some examples of what these so-called 'right environmental triggers' are, exactly?

And, I think you will find every so-called 'right environmental triggers' came from some Right, or Wrong, choice previously made by some adult human beings/s.

5. Can addressing dishonesty and accountability prevent future harm?
Yes, but even the motivation to address dishonesty and take accountability is influenced by external factors—by the values instilled in us, societal expectations, or personal experiences. The shift toward honesty, in this view, is a product of creating environments that discourage dishonest behavior and encourage transparency.

What you are doing here is 'trying to' 'justify' the 'cult'/Ure that you have been raised up in, and indoctrinated in to.

And, again, re-wording 'my words', and then answering 'your words' is only slowing 'the process' down, of changing 'this world', in the days when this is being written, to 'the much better and much healthier world', which is impossible if coming about, through change.

When the conditions are right, more people will act in ways we consider responsible or moral, not because of free will, but because the circumstances guide them toward those actions.

you sound like you are just 'another one' who BLAMES 'others/something else's for your continual Wrong doing, and does not want to accept and take responsibility for what you think, say, and do.

Also, again, 'waiting for some thing or others', instead of just seeking out how to change, for the better, NOW, is just another example of just being IRRESPONSIBLE.

In summary, while I respect the emphasis you place on “choosing to take responsibility,” from my perspective, all choices and actions are determined by external causes, and creating positive change is about shifting these underlying causes.

1. Why do you believe you can 'shift' things, but cannot 'choose' to 'change' things?

2. What is the difference between 'shift' and 'change' here, exactly?

3. If you did not inform 'us' here if what 'free will' means, and/or refers to, to you, exactly, previously here, then will you do it, 'now'?

4. To me, when you understand the difference between how and why I can 'choose' to make things better, for every one, as One, and you cannot, then you will see, understand, and know, exactly, what has, and why 'I' have been, 'influenced' 'me' DIFFERENTLY than 'you' and everyone else, in the days when this is being written.

This isn’t about passivity but about understanding that change is a process driven by conditions, not independent choices.

But, 'we' have, ALREADY, AGREED that 'change' is happening and occuring ALWAYS, anyway. And, that there is absolutely NOTHING that 'you' nor 'i' could do to affect, nor change, this in absolutely ANY way at all.

Also, what do you think or believe is the 'condition', which 'drives' 'the process' of 'change', itself?

Furthermore, to you, is it possible to change 'the process', which speeds up the time it will take to 'shift' you adult human beings to living in a society where you adult human beings start 'accepting and taking, actual, responsibility' from the 'lack if responsibility' that all of you human beings are living in, 'now', when this is being written?

By the way, have you noticed your tendency to try to argue and fight for your belief here that there is NO 'free will', AT ALL, instead of just trying to find, and uncover, the actual fundamental reason for ALL of your doings, and non doings?

[BigMike]

Here are my responses to each of your questions:

Do I believe my own views and express what I believe is true?
Yes, my views align with what I believe is true because they are a product of previous influences and experiences, not “purely independent” choices. I don’t believe in absolute, independent agency because I think all thoughts are shaped by prior conditioning, and that conditioning can only direct us toward what we’ve already experienced or learned. So yes, my beliefs reflect what I understand from my background, but I also acknowledge that they could evolve as new experiences and influences shape my thinking.

Does my thinking need improvement?
Absolutely. Given that none of us has had a “perfect” upbringing, all human thinking can improve. Our perspectives are shaped by the information we’ve been exposed to and the mental pathways that have formed as a result. If there are gaps or misunderstandings in my beliefs, they can be adjusted if new insights come along that strengthen the neural pathways between related brain centers.

What does a “purely free choice” mean, and why do I use the word “freely”?
By “purely free choice,” I mean a choice made without any external or internal constraints—an action that originates entirely from within, uninfluenced by prior causes. I use “freely” here to clarify that I don’t believe such independence exists. Our choices are always influenced by prior experiences, biology, and social conditioning. We can’t think of something that doesn’t occur to us, and it won’t occur to us if the connections in our brain aren’t already there or aren’t strong enough due to previous influences.

Does change only happen when conditions change?
Change is constant, yes. But specific types of change—like social or behavioral shifts—depend on certain conditions aligning, such as social awareness or cultural movements. When the conditions are right, changes in individual or collective behavior are more likely to occur. For instance, during major social movements, conditions reach a tipping point that leads to large-scale behavioral change.

Will I explain what I mean by “right environmental triggers”?
Certainly. “Right environmental triggers” refer to conditions that catalyze change, like economic shifts, technological advancements, or social movements that challenge the status quo. These triggers arise from prior decisions and events. For example, economic hardship can lead to movements for social reform because people’s discontent and awareness build up to a point where they collectively seek change.

Why do I say “shift” rather than “choose”?
I use “shift” to describe the process of change driven by influences, rather than implying that individuals independently “choose” to alter their behavior. Shifts happen as a natural consequence of existing pressures and conditions. When I say “shift,” I mean the outcome of conditions reaching a threshold that pushes change forward, not an isolated decision made from personal willpower.

Do I mean that people are passive in this process?
No. People are part of the process, influenced by and contributing to conditions around them. But even actions that seem deliberate are shaped by prior causes. In other words, we’re “active” participants, but our actions result from factors already in place, not from an independent, “free” will. As conditions shift, behaviors shift as well—through a process, not through isolated acts of free choice.

How do I define “free will”?
In this context, free will means the ability to act without any constraints from prior causes—making choices independent of past conditioning, biology, or environment. I don’t believe this kind of independence exists because all actions and thoughts stem from prior influences and brain processes. Our “choices” are expressions of those influences.

Do I believe it’s possible to speed up the process of societal change?
Yes, by creating environments that encourage certain behaviors (like honesty, responsibility, and empathy), we can help facilitate change in behavior on a larger scale. The more we understand the root causes of behavior, the more we can adjust conditions to promote desirable behaviors. Societal change is a gradual, condition-driven process, and while we can influence it, we can’t jump-start it in the way we might with a truly independent choice.

Is my focus on debating “no free will” rather than finding the fundamental cause of behavior?
The argument against free will isn’t meant to deny human agency altogether but to show that agency itself is shaped by external influences. The goal isn’t to dismiss our actions but to understand that, without the influence of these causes, certain behaviors wouldn’t arise. When we address these causes—rooted in social, economic, and psychological factors—we can work toward reducing harmful behaviors more effectively than by focusing on individual willpower alone.

[Alexiev]

What does a “purely free choice” mean, and why do I use the word “freely”?
By “purely free choice,” I mean a choice made without any external or internal constraints—an action that originates entirely from within, uninfluenced by prior causes. I use “freely” here to clarify that I don’t believe such independence exists. Our choices are always influenced by prior experiences, biology, and social conditioning. We can’t think of something that doesn’t occur to us, and it won’t occur to us if the connections in our brain aren’t already there or aren’t strong enough due to previous influences.

Of course all our decisions are influenced by our education and experiences. So what? What else could influence them? Why this makes them less "free" is a mystery.


[

b]How do I define “free will”?[/b]
In this context, free will means the ability to act without any constraints from prior causes—making choices independent of past conditioning, biology, or environment. I don’t believe this kind of independence exists because all actions and thoughts stem from prior influences and brain processes. Our “choices” are expressions of those influences.

Of course our choices are influenced by our personalities, our educations, and our experiences. Why does that make them less "free"? By your reasoning the choices of a slave - who will be whipped or hanged if he makes certain choices - are equally "free" with yours and mine. Not only does this defy the normal definition of "freedom", but it eliminates vital moral and legal distinctions.


[

b]Is my focus on debating “no free will” rather than finding the fundamental cause of behavior?[/b]
The argument against free will isn’t meant to deny human agency altogether but to show that agency itself is shaped by external influences. The goal isn’t to dismiss our actions but to understand that, without the influence of these causes, certain behaviors wouldn’t arise. When we address these causes—rooted in social, economic, and psychological factors—we can work toward reducing harmful behaviors more effectively than by focusing on individual willpower alone.

Is this supposed to be a unique or unusual approach? People have always tried to figure out what makes other people do what they do. Unfortunately, it's not easy. Economics, for example, has traditionally been based on the principle of rationality. Modern economists accept that this approach is often wrong. If we pluck a flower out of the crannies, and understand it, root and all, we would (per Tennyson) know what God and man is (in the poem, "man is" rhymes with "crannies"). But we can't.

[Gary Childress]

I appreciate your perspective on the importance of honesty, openness, and a genuine desire to improve. You’re right that addressing the core issues—dishonesty, fear of judgment, and deeply ingrained behaviors—could help us move toward a healthier society. However, from my point of view, these behaviors and motivations are themselves the result of prior conditioning, social environments, and external influences. What you describe as “taking responsibility” or “admitting wrongdoing” is, in this framework, simply one more result of the influences that shaped us—environment, upbringing, culture, and even genetics.

It could very well be that in the past we did evil things due to ignorance or even necessity (maybe? not so sure), however, we ought to know better now and there is no excuse to keep doing evil.

[BigMike]

What does a “purely free choice” mean, and why do I use the word “freely”?
By “purely free choice,” I mean a choice made without any external or internal constraints—an action that originates entirely from within, uninfluenced by prior causes. I use “freely” here to clarify that I don’t believe such independence exists. Our choices are always influenced by prior experiences, biology, and social conditioning. We can’t think of something that doesn’t occur to us, and it won’t occur to us if the connections in our brain aren’t already there or aren’t strong enough due to previous influences.

Of course all our decisions are influenced by our education and experiences. So what? What else could influence them? Why this makes them less "free" is a mystery.


[

b]How do I define “free will”?[/b]
In this context, free will means the ability to act without any constraints from prior causes—making choices independent of past conditioning, biology, or environment. I don’t believe this kind of independence exists because all actions and thoughts stem from prior influences and brain processes. Our “choices” are expressions of those influences.

Of course our choices are influenced by our personalities, our educations, and our experiences. Why does that make them less "free"? By your reasoning the choices of a slave - who will be whipped or hanged if he makes certain choices - are equally "free" with yours and mine. Not only does this defy the normal definition of "freedom", but it eliminates vital moral and legal distinctions.


[

b]Is my focus on debating “no free will” rather than finding the fundamental cause of behavior?[/b]
The argument against free will isn’t meant to deny human agency altogether but to show that agency itself is shaped by external influences. The goal isn’t to dismiss our actions but to understand that, without the influence of these causes, certain behaviors wouldn’t arise. When we address these causes—rooted in social, economic, and psychological factors—we can work toward reducing harmful behaviors more effectively than by focusing on individual willpower alone.

Is this supposed to be a unique or unusual approach? People have always tried to figure out what makes other people do what they do. Unfortunately, it's not easy. Economics, for example, has traditionally been based on the principle of rationality. Modern economists accept that this approach is often wrong. If we pluck a flower out of the crannies, and understand it, root and all, we would (per Tennyson) know what God and man is (in the poem, "man is" rhymes with "crannies"). But we can't.

I see where you’re coming from, and I get that this all might sound like it’s complicating something fairly straightforward. Let me clarify a few things:

When I say that prior influences make a choice “less free,” I’m not implying that influenced choices are meaningless or without agency. My argument here is that if every choice stems from prior causes, then "free" in the absolute sense—entirely uninfluenced by anything—is just not possible. Our brains are constantly shaped by biology, past experiences, and social context, and these elements set up the "conditions" under which we make decisions. So, while choices feel “free” because we’re not conscious of all the influences at work, they’re still the product of a chain of prior events.

Now, to your point about a slave: I completely agree that “freedom” has a practical, real-world dimension in terms of what choices are available. The freedom we talk about in society—freedom from oppression, from harm, or from manipulation—is indeed crucial and deeply significant. But philosophically, even choices within the broadest social freedom are still shaped by our past conditioning and biological drives. This isn’t about diminishing legal and moral distinctions but rather understanding that all choices, whether constrained by external factors like slavery or made in total social freedom, are still shaped by causes beyond our conscious control.

As for understanding human behavior, yes, people have always looked to understand motives and influences. What’s different here is that by examining these root causes through a scientific and empirical lens, we’re not just speculating—we’re looking at tangible evidence from fields like neuroscience and psychology. It’s not about knowing the answer to every individual choice but understanding the larger patterns. We can’t capture everything about human nature, but we can get closer to understanding why we make certain choices, which in turn can help us design systems that minimize harm and promote well-being.