Moving Beyond the Illusion of Free Will in Governance

[Belinda]

If you want to refute this, start where it matters: show how ignoring evidence leads to better outcomes.

Evidence shows how fast humans can run.

Yet every single time a world record is broken, that runner ignores all previous evidence.

True, evidence never can mean 100% certain prediction. Despite that, evidence is better
than no evidence, depending on the quality of the evidence. Quality of evidence however is tangential to the argument.

When betting on a horse race are you a fan of outsider bets?

[BigMike]

If you want to refute this, start where it matters: show how ignoring evidence leads to better outcomes.

Evidence shows how fast humans can run.

Yet every single time a world record is broken, that runner ignores all previous evidence.

True, evidence never can mean 100% certain prediction. Despite that, evidence is better
than no evidence, depending on the quality of the evidence. Quality of evidence however is tangential to the argument.

When betting on a horse race are you a fan of outsider bets?

Belinda, you’re exactly right that evidence isn’t about setting absolute limits—it’s about understanding probabilities and working within them. The example of breaking a running record doesn’t show a rejection of evidence; it demonstrates what evidence is supposed to do: provide a baseline for understanding what’s possible while leaving room for progress.

If evidence shows that a human can run a certain speed, it doesn’t mean faster speeds are impossible—it means we’ve established what’s been achieved so far. Progress happens when someone builds on that foundation, not by ignoring it. In fact, those breakthroughs often rely on evidence-based advancements, like improved training regimens or technologies, that make breaking records possible.

This is the same principle that applies in governance. Evidence provides the groundwork for decisions, showing what has worked and what hasn’t. It’s not a guarantee of future outcomes, but it’s far better than operating without it. Ignoring evidence in favor of ideological whims or hunches leads to chaos, not innovation. And while no evidence can ever predict outcomes with 100% certainty, it’s the closest thing we have to a reliable guide for making better decisions.

When betting on a horse race, sure, you could gamble on the longshot with little data to back it up, but that’s not a strategy—it’s luck. Evidence gives you the best odds, and in governance, where lives and resources are at stake, betting on the outsider isn’t just a risk; it’s irresponsible.

[Wizard22]

True, evidence never can mean 100% certain prediction. Despite that, evidence is better than no evidence, depending on the quality of the evidence. Quality of evidence however is tangential to the argument.

When betting on a horse race are you a fan of outsider bets?

Sure, everybody likes a good underdog story.

[Wizard22]

Out of time for now...I'll respond to BigMike later.

[Belinda]

True, evidence never can mean 100% certain prediction. Despite that, evidence is better than no evidence, depending on the quality of the evidence. Quality of evidence however is tangential to the argument.

When betting on a horse race are you a fan of outsider bets?

Sure, everybody likes a good underdog story.

For trivial matters, yes, Especially when people are down on their luck, it's immensely cheering to hear a true Cinderella story. But when it comes to important matters such as governance we need to hear the most probable predictions so we can make plans how to save ourselves

[henry quirk]

Mike, what's your thoughts on this?

A surgeon has one healthy patient and five terminally ill patients; he can save the lives of the ill patients, but only by harvesting organs from the healthy patient, who will die in the process. Should he or shouldn't he?

[BigMike]

Mike, what's your thoughts on this?

A surgeon has one healthy patient and five terminally ill patients; he can save the lives of the ill patients, but only by harvesting organs from the healthy patient, who will die in the process. Should he or shouldn't he?

Henry, that’s a classic ethical dilemma, and my answer hinges on the principles of determinism and evidence-based reasoning. Let’s break it down.

In a deterministic framework, the surgeon’s decision is not made in a moral vacuum. It’s shaped by their training, the ethical guidelines of their profession, and the societal norms they’ve internalized. These factors are part of the causal chain that determines their choice. What’s critical here is the role of evidence in guiding decisions that impact human lives.

From an evidence-based perspective, we’d ask: what kind of precedent does this decision set? Allowing the surgeon to sacrifice one patient for the benefit of others would fundamentally undermine trust in the medical profession. Patients would fear going to the doctor, knowing their lives might be weighed against others. The long-term harm to the healthcare system and society would far outweigh the immediate benefit of saving five lives.

Determinism doesn’t mean ignoring the complexity of these decisions; it means recognizing that all actions are consequences of prior causes. Here, the surgeon’s ethical guidelines exist precisely because we’ve learned, through evidence, that protecting individual rights leads to better outcomes for society as a whole. Sacrificing those principles for short-term gains disrupts that balance and leads to greater harm down the line.

So, should the surgeon harvest the organs? No—not because of some abstract moral rule, but because the deterministic consequences of such an action would ripple through society in ways that cause more harm than good. Determinism reminds us that every choice has consequences, and evidence-based reasoning helps us evaluate those consequences in the most rational way possible.

[henry quirk]

should the surgeon harvest the organs? No...because the deterministic consequences of such an action would ripple through society in ways that cause more harm than good

If there was a way to mitigate or negate the harm (by keeping such harvesting secret, or, normalizing such transplants into an accepted cultural convention) would your answer change?

That is: if there were no harmful societal consequences, would you say yes, harvest away?

[BigMike]

should the surgeon harvest the organs? No...because the deterministic consequences of such an action would ripple through society in ways that cause more harm than good

If there was a way to mitigate or negate the harm (by keeping such harvesting secret, or, normalizing such transplants into an accepted cultural convention) would your answer change?

That is: if there were no harmful societal consequences, would you say yes, harvest away?

Henry, that’s a fascinating follow-up, but even if societal consequences were mitigated—through secrecy or cultural normalization—the deterministic framework still wouldn’t necessarily lead to a green light for "harvest away." Here’s why.

First, secrecy introduces its own deterministic consequences. For example, the systems required to keep such actions secret would eventually lead to leaks or unintended consequences, as history repeatedly shows us with covert operations. Determinism reminds us that no action happens in isolation—attempting to suppress public knowledge creates its own causal chain of mistrust and unintended ripple effects. Even if secrecy initially masks harm, it’s unlikely to remain concealed forever, and the consequences of exposure could be catastrophic.

As for cultural normalization, that’s an entirely different deterministic process. It would require society to fundamentally reframe its values around individual rights, autonomy, and trust in medicine. To reach such a point, you’d need evidence that this shift leads to better outcomes overall—not just for the five patients who might live, but for everyone involved. So far, history and evidence don’t support the idea that sacrificing individual rights en masse leads to a thriving, stable society.

Even in a hypothetical scenario where neither secrecy nor normalization produced harmful societal consequences, there’s still the matter of consent. The deterministic consequences of removing autonomy from individuals—treating people as means rather than ends—would undermine the foundational principles that hold society together. Evidence consistently shows that respecting individual autonomy fosters better outcomes in the long run than violating it, even when the short-term gains appear compelling.

So no, my answer doesn’t change. The deterministic and evidence-based framework still points to a clear "no," because the broader consequences of such a practice, however you frame it, don’t support a better world. Determinism is about understanding the interconnected causes and effects of actions, and evidence shows that protecting trust and autonomy leads to better societal stability and well-being.

[henry quirk]

Suppose such transplants did, as a matter of fact, unambiguously, support a better world: would your answer change?

[Alexiev]

Alexiev, your response veers into emotional rhetoric and misrepresentation rather than engaging with the core argument. You conflate the deterministic understanding of choice with a denial of agency, which is not what I’m proposing. Let’s address this step by step:

First, you are misunderstanding determinism in the context of choice. The definition of choice you provided—“an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities”—does not contradict determinism. Under determinism, the act of selection is shaped entirely by prior causes: neural processes, environmental factors, and biological predispositions. The “possibilities” you perceive are products of your mind integrating inputs, but the decision you ultimately make is not free of those causes.

Second, your gambler analogy doesn’t rescue the notion of free will. Yes, the gambler perceives possibilities, but the card they draw is predetermined, as is the decision-making process that leads them to bet, fold, or bluff. Their decision feels autonomous, but it’s driven by a web of prior influences—experience, emotion, and probability assessments. Determinism doesn’t negate the subjective experience of deliberation; it explains it.

Now, to address your dramatic leap into morality: determinism does not absolve moral responsibility; it redefines its basis. Responsibility isn’t about some mystical “freedom” to transcend causality—it’s about understanding the causes of behavior and acting to shape better outcomes. Determinism doesn’t excuse cruelty or oppression; it provides the framework to understand why it occurs and how to prevent it. You invoke the image of the slave master wielding a whip, yet fail to see that determinism is precisely what allows us to identify the systemic causes of such oppression—economic conditions, cultural ideologies, and power structures—and work to dismantle them.

Finally, your use of “freedom” is loaded with emotional connotations but lacks precision. Freedom in the deterministic sense isn’t about being uncaused; it’s about operating within the parameters of what causes allow. Slavery is a denial of freedoms granted by societal norms and ethical considerations, not some metaphysical violation of free will. A determinist framework doesn’t deny the harm of slavery—it deepens our understanding of the causes behind it and strengthens the case for its abolition.

If you truly believe my argument promotes evil, then you’re either misreading it or willfully ignoring the nuance. Determinism doesn’t eliminate moral responsibility; it shifts our focus to addressing the causes of suffering and oppression, which is far more constructive than clinging to an antiquated notion of “freedom” detached from causality.

You appear unable or unwilling to understand my points. Of course using my definition of "choice", choice does not contradict determinism (nor does it verify it). I've so stated many times.

Your logic appears to be:

P1: All our actions and behaviors are predetermined by the laws of physics (and environmental factors)
P2 If actions are unalterable (i.e. predetermined) those who do them should not be blamed

Therefore, we should not ascribe moral blame to murderers, rapists, and embezzlers.

Of course the problematic postulate is #2 (even if we accept #1). Why should we refuse to ascribe moral blame? All actions that have already happened are unalterable. Does that imply that we can ascribe moral blame only to potential events that might happen in the future?

In addition, your deterministic theory is that humans' behavior is determined by biology and culture. WE wouldn't learn to speak English if the language did not exist. So why would you think that changing the culture by refusing to ascribe moral blame (or praise) would improve society? Isn't it far more likely that moral rules and the sanctions (positive or negative) that accompany them help conduce human happiness and prevent mayhem?

Continue to argue (if you want) for determinism. But the notion that acceptance of determinism will (or should) change human society is, I think, incorrect -- especially so as you present it.

[BigMike]

Suppose such transplants did, as a matter of fact, unambiguously, support a better world: would your answer change?

Henry, through the lens of the Hippocratic Oath, the answer remains steadfast: no, the surgeon should not harvest the organs. The fundamental principle of the Hippocratic Oath is "do no harm," and deliberately sacrificing one healthy patient violates that principle at its core, regardless of any hypothetical societal benefit.

Even if, as you suggest, such transplants could unambiguously support a better world, the act itself breaches the ethical commitment a doctor makes to prioritize the well-being and autonomy of each individual patient. The Oath doesn’t allow for utilitarian calculations where one life is taken to save others; it demands that doctors treat their patients as ends in themselves, not as means to broader societal goals.

In this scenario, the surgeon’s primary obligation is to the healthy patient, whose life would be directly and irrevocably harmed by such an action. Supporting a "better world" cannot override the immediate and personal harm done to the individual, which the Oath exists to guard against.

The Hippocratic Oath ensures trust in the medical profession, and violating it—even for a perceived greater good—would erode that trust, leading to far-reaching consequences. Patients must know that their doctor will not weigh their lives against others, no matter how compelling the broader benefits may seem. This trust is foundational to the practice of medicine, and without it, the integrity of healthcare collapses.

So, under the guidance of the Hippocratic Oath, the answer is unequivocal: the surgeon must not harvest the organs, because to do so would irreparably harm their patient, their profession, and the ethical foundation of medicine itself.

[Atla]

Determinism is the case, therefore moral blame …

A. doesn't exist.
B. exists, but is irrational.
C. is also deterministic.

[BigMike]

Alexiev, your response veers into emotional rhetoric and misrepresentation rather than engaging with the core argument. You conflate the deterministic understanding of choice with a denial of agency, which is not what I’m proposing. Let’s address this step by step:

First, you are misunderstanding determinism in the context of choice. The definition of choice you provided—“an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities”—does not contradict determinism. Under determinism, the act of selection is shaped entirely by prior causes: neural processes, environmental factors, and biological predispositions. The “possibilities” you perceive are products of your mind integrating inputs, but the decision you ultimately make is not free of those causes.

Second, your gambler analogy doesn’t rescue the notion of free will. Yes, the gambler perceives possibilities, but the card they draw is predetermined, as is the decision-making process that leads them to bet, fold, or bluff. Their decision feels autonomous, but it’s driven by a web of prior influences—experience, emotion, and probability assessments. Determinism doesn’t negate the subjective experience of deliberation; it explains it.

Now, to address your dramatic leap into morality: determinism does not absolve moral responsibility; it redefines its basis. Responsibility isn’t about some mystical “freedom” to transcend causality—it’s about understanding the causes of behavior and acting to shape better outcomes. Determinism doesn’t excuse cruelty or oppression; it provides the framework to understand why it occurs and how to prevent it. You invoke the image of the slave master wielding a whip, yet fail to see that determinism is precisely what allows us to identify the systemic causes of such oppression—economic conditions, cultural ideologies, and power structures—and work to dismantle them.

Finally, your use of “freedom” is loaded with emotional connotations but lacks precision. Freedom in the deterministic sense isn’t about being uncaused; it’s about operating within the parameters of what causes allow. Slavery is a denial of freedoms granted by societal norms and ethical considerations, not some metaphysical violation of free will. A determinist framework doesn’t deny the harm of slavery—it deepens our understanding of the causes behind it and strengthens the case for its abolition.

If you truly believe my argument promotes evil, then you’re either misreading it or willfully ignoring the nuance. Determinism doesn’t eliminate moral responsibility; it shifts our focus to addressing the causes of suffering and oppression, which is far more constructive than clinging to an antiquated notion of “freedom” detached from causality.

You appear unable or unwilling to understand my points. Of course using my definition of "choice", choice does not contradict determinism (nor does it verify it). I've so stated many times.

Your logic appears to be:

P1: All our actions and behaviors are predetermined by the laws of physics (and environmental factors)
P2 If actions are unalterable (i.e. predetermined) those who do them should not be blamed

Therefore, we should not ascribe moral blame to murderers, rapists, and embezzlers.

Of course the problematic postulate is #2 (even if we accept #1). Why should we refuse to ascribe moral blame? All actions that have already happened are unalterable. Does that imply that we can ascribe moral blame only to potential events that might happen in the future?

In addition, your deterministic theory is that humans' behavior is determined by biology and culture. WE wouldn't learn to speak English if the language did not exist. So why would you think that changing the culture by refusing to ascribe moral blame (or praise) would improve society? Isn't it far more likely that moral rules and the sanctions (positive or negative) that accompany them help conduce human happiness and prevent mayhem?

Continue to argue (if you want) for determinism. But the notion that acceptance of determinism will (or should) change human society is, I think, incorrect -- especially so as you present it.

Alexiev, let’s tackle this head-on because your critique zeroes in on one of the most challenging aspects of determinism: how it intersects with moral responsibility and societal norms. The heart of your argument seems to hinge on the idea that determinism undermines the utility of moral blame and sanctions. Let me clarify why that’s not the case.

First, let’s revisit your interpretation of my logic:

1. Yes, our actions are predetermined by the laws of physics and environmental factors. This is a deterministic framework.
2. No, this does not mean we abandon all notions of responsibility; it means we rethink what responsibility is and how it functions in a deterministic context.

When we talk about "moral blame," we’re addressing a system that has evolved to regulate behavior. In a deterministic framework, the point isn’t to eliminate consequences or accountability—it’s to align them with the actual causes of behavior. When someone commits a harmful act, determinism doesn’t excuse them; it explains why they acted the way they did. This understanding enables society to target the underlying causes—be they psychological, environmental, or systemic—rather than focusing on punitive measures that often fail to address the root of the issue.

Your concern about societal improvement is valid. Would refusing to ascribe moral blame improve society? Not if it’s simply replaced with permissiveness or chaos. However, determinism advocates for a shift from blame as a moral condemnation to responsibility as a tool for shaping future outcomes. Instead of saying, "You’re evil, so we punish you," we’d say, "This behavior arose from specific causes, so we address those causes to prevent recurrence."

For instance, consider the criminal justice system. The deterministic approach wouldn’t mean letting murderers and embezzlers go free. Instead, it would mean creating evidence-based interventions—rehabilitation programs, social reforms, and educational initiatives—that reduce the likelihood of such crimes occurring in the first place. This is not utopian idealism; it’s grounded in empirical evidence from societies that have successfully implemented restorative justice models and preventative measures.

You also suggest that moral rules and sanctions contribute to human happiness and prevent mayhem. That’s true to an extent, but those rules must evolve as we learn more about human behavior. Determinism doesn’t discard moral rules; it refines them, ensuring they’re based on causality and evidence rather than retribution or superstition.

Finally, the idea that acceptance of determinism won’t or shouldn’t change society misses the transformative potential of understanding causality. Determinism compels us to stop asking "Who deserves blame?" and start asking, "What caused this, and how can we fix it?" It’s not about removing accountability; it’s about making accountability more effective and just.

The shift may seem radical, but it’s no different than the transition from medieval punitive justice to modern systems that incorporate psychological and sociological insights. Determinism is simply the next step in that evolution, rooted in the same desire to create a safer, more compassionate society.

[Immanuel Can]

LOL

Sorry...still not even remotely interested in you, "Age."