Moving Beyond the Illusion of Free Will in Governance

[BigMike]

Determinism is the case, therefore moral blame …

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

C. Moral blame is also deterministic.

Here’s why: under determinism, everything—including the way we assign moral blame—is part of the causal chain. The act of blaming someone arises from prior causes like our upbringing, societal norms, emotional reactions, and the cultural frameworks we’ve internalized. Blame isn’t some independent force outside of determinism; it’s just another outcome of the same deterministic processes that govern all human behavior.

The key question isn’t whether moral blame "exists" in a deterministic universe—it clearly does, because people express it. The real issue is whether moral blame, as traditionally conceived, is useful or rational when viewed through the lens of determinism. Once we recognize that all actions are caused, moral blame starts to look less like a rational evaluation of someone’s freedom to choose and more like a conditioned response aimed at regulating behavior.

In a deterministic framework, we can move beyond blame as an emotional or punitive tool and reframe it as part of a larger strategy to understand and influence human behavior. Instead of saying, "You’re bad, so you deserve punishment," we’d ask, "What caused this action, and how can we intervene to prevent it in the future?" That’s a far more constructive approach, aligning accountability with the realities of causality while still maintaining societal order.

[Atla]

Determinism is the case, therefore moral blame …

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

C. Moral blame is also deterministic.

Here’s why: under determinism, everything—including the way we assign moral blame—is part of the causal chain. The act of blaming someone arises from prior causes like our upbringing, societal norms, emotional reactions, and the cultural frameworks we’ve internalized. Blame isn’t some independent force outside of determinism; it’s just another outcome of the same deterministic processes that govern all human behavior.

The key question isn’t whether moral blame "exists" in a deterministic universe—it clearly does, because people express it. The real issue is whether moral blame, as traditionally conceived, is useful or rational when viewed through the lens of determinism. Once we recognize that all actions are caused, moral blame starts to look less like a rational evaluation of someone’s freedom to choose and more like a conditioned response aimed at regulating behavior.

In a deterministic framework, we can move beyond blame as an emotional or punitive tool and reframe it as part of a larger strategy to understand and influence human behavior. Instead of saying, "You’re bad, so you deserve punishment," we’d ask, "What caused this action, and how can we intervene to prevent it in the future?" That’s a far more constructive approach, aligning accountability with the realities of causality while still maintaining societal order.

You keep choosing:
B. exists, but is irrational.

But determinism simply says:
C. is also deterministic.

It doesn't follow at all that we should move beyond blame as an emotional or punitive tool. It just says that blame as an emotional or punitive tools is also deterministic.

[BigMike]

Determinism is the case, therefore moral blame …

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

C. Moral blame is also deterministic.

Here’s why: under determinism, everything—including the way we assign moral blame—is part of the causal chain. The act of blaming someone arises from prior causes like our upbringing, societal norms, emotional reactions, and the cultural frameworks we’ve internalized. Blame isn’t some independent force outside of determinism; it’s just another outcome of the same deterministic processes that govern all human behavior.

The key question isn’t whether moral blame "exists" in a deterministic universe—it clearly does, because people express it. The real issue is whether moral blame, as traditionally conceived, is useful or rational when viewed through the lens of determinism. Once we recognize that all actions are caused, moral blame starts to look less like a rational evaluation of someone’s freedom to choose and more like a conditioned response aimed at regulating behavior.

In a deterministic framework, we can move beyond blame as an emotional or punitive tool and reframe it as part of a larger strategy to understand and influence human behavior. Instead of saying, "You’re bad, so you deserve punishment," we’d ask, "What caused this action, and how can we intervene to prevent it in the future?" That’s a far more constructive approach, aligning accountability with the realities of causality while still maintaining societal order.

You keep choosing:
B. exists, but is irrational.

But determinism simply says:
C. is also deterministic.

It doesn't follow at all that we should move beyond blame as an emotional or punitive tool. It just says that blame as an emotional or punitive tools is also deterministic.

Atla, you’re absolutely right that determinism dictates moral blame, in whatever form it takes, is itself deterministic. It arises causally from prior influences like culture, evolution, and personal experiences. That’s exactly what option C encapsulates. However, determinism also gives us the tools to analyze whether the expression of blame in its traditional forms—emotional or punitive—is the most effective way to regulate behavior or address harm.

Just because something is deterministic doesn’t mean we shouldn’t evaluate its utility. Determinism doesn’t lock us into accepting every deterministic behavior as unchangeable; it allows us to assess causes and outcomes and then choose better strategies—based, of course, on our deterministic reasoning and values. For example, while the instinct to blame emotionally or punitively is natural, deterministic insight lets us ask whether these approaches achieve the results we want, such as reducing harm or fostering cooperation.

You’re correct that determinism doesn’t inherently prescribe a shift away from traditional blame—it simply explains its existence. The argument to move beyond blame in its emotional or punitive form arises from reasoning within a deterministic framework. If evidence shows that approaches like rehabilitation, restorative justice, or addressing root causes lead to better outcomes than blame-driven punishment, then determinism aligns us with those strategies.

In short, moral blame is deterministic, but so is the evaluation of its utility. Recognizing that doesn’t mean we must stick with old paradigms; it means we can adapt based on what works best, all while remaining firmly within the deterministic causal chain.

[Atla]

C. Moral blame is also deterministic.

Here’s why: under determinism, everything—including the way we assign moral blame—is part of the causal chain. The act of blaming someone arises from prior causes like our upbringing, societal norms, emotional reactions, and the cultural frameworks we’ve internalized. Blame isn’t some independent force outside of determinism; it’s just another outcome of the same deterministic processes that govern all human behavior.

The key question isn’t whether moral blame "exists" in a deterministic universe—it clearly does, because people express it. The real issue is whether moral blame, as traditionally conceived, is useful or rational when viewed through the lens of determinism. Once we recognize that all actions are caused, moral blame starts to look less like a rational evaluation of someone’s freedom to choose and more like a conditioned response aimed at regulating behavior.

In a deterministic framework, we can move beyond blame as an emotional or punitive tool and reframe it as part of a larger strategy to understand and influence human behavior. Instead of saying, "You’re bad, so you deserve punishment," we’d ask, "What caused this action, and how can we intervene to prevent it in the future?" That’s a far more constructive approach, aligning accountability with the realities of causality while still maintaining societal order.

You keep choosing:
B. exists, but is irrational.

But determinism simply says:
C. is also deterministic.

It doesn't follow at all that we should move beyond blame as an emotional or punitive tool. It just says that blame as an emotional or punitive tools is also deterministic.

Atla, you’re absolutely right that determinism dictates moral blame, in whatever form it takes, is itself deterministic. It arises causally from prior influences like culture, evolution, and personal experiences. That’s exactly what option C encapsulates. However, determinism also gives us the tools to analyze whether the expression of blame in its traditional forms—emotional or punitive—is the most effective way to regulate behavior or address harm.

Just because something is deterministic doesn’t mean we shouldn’t evaluate its utility. Determinism doesn’t lock us into accepting every deterministic behavior as unchangeable; it allows us to assess causes and outcomes and then choose better strategies—based, of course, on our deterministic reasoning and values. For example, while the instinct to blame emotionally or punitively is natural, deterministic insight lets us ask whether these approaches achieve the results we want, such as reducing harm or fostering cooperation.

You’re correct that determinism doesn’t inherently prescribe a shift away from traditional blame—it simply explains its existence. The argument to move beyond blame in its emotional or punitive form arises from reasoning within a deterministic framework. If evidence shows that approaches like rehabilitation, restorative justice, or addressing root causes lead to better outcomes than blame-driven punishment, then determinism aligns us with those strategies.

In short, moral blame is deterministic, but so is the evaluation of its utility. Recognizing that doesn’t mean we must stick with old paradigms; it means we can adapt based on what works best, all while remaining firmly within the deterministic causal chain.

And you don't think that combining blame as an emotional or punitive tool with rehabilitation / restorative justice / addressing root causes is better than either of those two approaches alone?

[BigMike]

You keep choosing:
B. exists, but is irrational.

But determinism simply says:
C. is also deterministic.

It doesn't follow at all that we should move beyond blame as an emotional or punitive tool. It just says that blame as an emotional or punitive tools is also deterministic.

Atla, you’re absolutely right that determinism dictates moral blame, in whatever form it takes, is itself deterministic. It arises causally from prior influences like culture, evolution, and personal experiences. That’s exactly what option C encapsulates. However, determinism also gives us the tools to analyze whether the expression of blame in its traditional forms—emotional or punitive—is the most effective way to regulate behavior or address harm.

Just because something is deterministic doesn’t mean we shouldn’t evaluate its utility. Determinism doesn’t lock us into accepting every deterministic behavior as unchangeable; it allows us to assess causes and outcomes and then choose better strategies—based, of course, on our deterministic reasoning and values. For example, while the instinct to blame emotionally or punitively is natural, deterministic insight lets us ask whether these approaches achieve the results we want, such as reducing harm or fostering cooperation.

You’re correct that determinism doesn’t inherently prescribe a shift away from traditional blame—it simply explains its existence. The argument to move beyond blame in its emotional or punitive form arises from reasoning within a deterministic framework. If evidence shows that approaches like rehabilitation, restorative justice, or addressing root causes lead to better outcomes than blame-driven punishment, then determinism aligns us with those strategies.

In short, moral blame is deterministic, but so is the evaluation of its utility. Recognizing that doesn’t mean we must stick with old paradigms; it means we can adapt based on what works best, all while remaining firmly within the deterministic causal chain.

And you don't think that combining blame as an emotional or punitive tool with rehabilitation / restorative justice / addressing root causes is better than either of those two approaches alone?

Atla, you’ve hit on something important here, and I agree: combining blame as an emotional or punitive tool with approaches like rehabilitation and restorative justice might seem like a way to cover all bases. But here’s where it gets tricky—and why we need to carefully evaluate the role of blame in that mix.

Blame, particularly in its emotional or punitive form, often serves a reactive purpose. It satisfies the immediate desire for accountability or retribution but doesn’t necessarily address the root causes of harmful behavior or prevent future harm. When blame dominates, it can overshadow efforts toward more constructive solutions, like rehabilitation or restorative justice. For example, a punitive focus might make society feel safer in the short term, but it often exacerbates systemic issues, like recidivism, that undermine long-term safety and stability.

On the other hand, integrating blame with rehabilitative approaches requires redefining blame itself—not as an emotional reaction or moral condemnation, but as a recognition of accountability within a deterministic framework. If blame is reframed to serve a constructive purpose—like acknowledging harm while focusing on preventing its recurrence—then it can coexist with solutions aimed at healing and reform.

The key is balance. Evidence shows that systems emphasizing rehabilitation and addressing root causes tend to produce better long-term outcomes than punitive systems alone. But dismissing emotional blame entirely could alienate those who feel justice requires recognition of harm and accountability. The challenge, then, is to channel blame into something that aligns with deterministic insights: an acknowledgment of harm paired with actionable steps to improve the conditions that caused it.

In short, combining these approaches isn’t just about throwing everything into the mix—it’s about ensuring that blame, if used, supports rather than undermines rehabilitative and preventative efforts. That’s the balance worth striving for.

[FlashDangerpants]

Blame, particularly in its emotional or punitive form, often serves a reactive purpose. It satisfies the immediate desire for accountability or retribution but doesn’t necessarily address the root causes of harmful behavior or prevent future harm.

You have difficulty getting this message across because you never really find a way for it to mean anything much. Let's fix that by finding something, anything, where there is an actual difference...

So, for instance, are you saying that all those vicars who spent the 70s and 80s raping little altar boys but are now too old to do rapes should be just let off because blaming them for what they did would be counter productively retributive.

Or do you take the nothing-burger business-as-usual decision saying that they should be punished because that would serve to dissuade future child rapists, in which case retribution works irrespective of the reasons for pursuing it?

[BigMike]

Blame, particularly in its emotional or punitive form, often serves a reactive purpose. It satisfies the immediate desire for accountability or retribution but doesn’t necessarily address the root causes of harmful behavior or prevent future harm.

You have difficulty getting this message across because you never really find a way for it to mean anything much. Let's fix that by finding something, anything, where there is an actual difference...

So, for instance, are you saying that all those vicars who spent the 70s and 80s raping little altar boys but are now too old to do rapes should be just let off because blaming them for what they did would be counter productively retributive.

Or do you take the nothing-burger business-as-usual decision saying that they should be punished because that would serve to dissuade future child rapists, in which case retribution works irrespective of the reasons for pursuing it?

Atla, that’s a fair point, and you’re absolutely right to suggest that combining emotional or punitive blame with approaches like rehabilitation and restorative justice could be more effective in some cases. Determinism doesn’t prescribe an all-or-nothing shift—it allows for nuance in how we integrate different strategies.

Blame as an emotional or punitive tool has its roots in human evolution, where it likely played a role in deterring harmful behavior and reinforcing social cohesion. Even now, expressions of blame—whether societal or interpersonal—can serve as signals to others about what behaviors are unacceptable. The question, though, is how to balance this natural response with the more constructive strategies we’ve developed.

A blended approach could work if it incorporates the functional aspects of blame—like signaling social norms—while minimizing its potential for harm or perpetuating cycles of resentment and punishment. Rehabilitation, restorative justice, and addressing root causes don’t replace blame; they refine its purpose and channel it into outcomes that reduce harm and build a better society. Emotional blame alone often addresses symptoms without tackling the causes, while a purely restorative approach risks being perceived as too lenient. Together, they might strike a balance.

Determinism doesn’t demand we abandon tools like blame altogether—it just encourages us to use them thoughtfully and in combination with evidence-based practices. If blending these approaches leads to better outcomes, then determinism fully supports such a pragmatic and adaptive strategy.

[FlashDangerpants]

Blame, particularly in its emotional or punitive form, often serves a reactive purpose. It satisfies the immediate desire for accountability or retribution but doesn’t necessarily address the root causes of harmful behavior or prevent future harm.

You have difficulty getting this message across because you never really find a way for it to mean anything much. Let's fix that by finding something, anything, where there is an actual difference...

So, for instance, are you saying that all those vicars who spent the 70s and 80s raping little altar boys but are now too old to do rapes should be just let off because blaming them for what they did would be counter productively retributive.

Or do you take the nothing-burger business-as-usual decision saying that they should be punished because that would serve to dissuade future child rapists, in which case retribution works irrespective of the reasons for pursuing it?

Atla, that’s a fair point, and you’re absolutely right to suggest that combining emotional or punitive blame with approaches like rehabilitation and restorative justice could be more effective in some cases. Determinism doesn’t prescribe an all-or-nothing shift—it allows for nuance in how we integrate different strategies.

Blame as an emotional or punitive tool has its roots in human evolution, where it likely played a role in deterring harmful behavior and reinforcing social cohesion. Even now, expressions of blame—whether societal or interpersonal—can serve as signals to others about what behaviors are unacceptable. The question, though, is how to balance this natural response with the more constructive strategies we’ve developed.

A blended approach could work if it incorporates the functional aspects of blame—like signaling social norms—while minimizing its potential for harm or perpetuating cycles of resentment and punishment. Rehabilitation, restorative justice, and addressing root causes don’t replace blame; they refine its purpose and channel it into outcomes that reduce harm and build a better society. Emotional blame alone often addresses symptoms without tackling the causes, while a purely restorative approach risks being perceived as too lenient. Together, they might strike a balance.

Determinism doesn’t demand we abandon tools like blame altogether—it just encourages us to use them thoughtfully and in combination with evidence-based practices. If blending these approaches leads to better outcomes, then determinism fully supports such a pragmatic and adaptive strategy.

So ... no actual answer. The rubber just never hits the road does it?

[henry quirk]

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.

Why is it wrong to cause immediate and personal harm...to the individual?

[BigMike]

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.

Why is it wrong to cause immediate and personal harm...to the individual?

Henry, it’s wrong to cause immediate and personal harm to an individual because the act violates the principle of respect for autonomy and the ethical foundation that prioritizes the well-being of the individual under the Hippocratic Oath. This principle isn’t just about avoiding harm—it’s about recognizing the inherent dignity and rights of each patient, which forms the trust between a patient and their physician.

When a surgeon harms an individual to benefit others, they transform that person from an autonomous being into a means to an end. This breach undermines not only the individual’s autonomy but also the trust that all patients place in the medical profession. Medicine relies on this trust; patients must feel assured that their doctor will act in their best interests, not as a utilitarian calculus for the greater good.

The Hippocratic Oath explicitly guides physicians to avoid harm and prioritize their patient’s welfare. This isn’t just an abstract principle—it has practical consequences. Violating this trust would lead to fear, erosion of confidence in healthcare, and ultimately, a collapse of the ethical standards that ensure the integrity of medicine.

Even in a deterministic framework, where all actions have causes, these ethical guidelines are essential tools for maintaining order and fostering the best outcomes for society as a whole. They ensure that doctors act as guardians of their patients’ well-being, not arbiters of whose life holds more utility. That’s why causing immediate and personal harm to an individual under the guise of benefiting others is fundamentally wrong. It strikes at the heart of medical ethics and the societal trust that sustains it.

[henry quirk]

No, Mike, I'm talkin' generally now: why is it wrong to cause immediate and personal harm...to the individual?

[BigMike]

You have difficulty getting this message across because you never really find a way for it to mean anything much. Let's fix that by finding something, anything, where there is an actual difference...

So, for instance, are you saying that all those vicars who spent the 70s and 80s raping little altar boys but are now too old to do rapes should be just let off because blaming them for what they did would be counter productively retributive.

Or do you take the nothing-burger business-as-usual decision saying that they should be punished because that would serve to dissuade future child rapists, in which case retribution works irrespective of the reasons for pursuing it?

Atla, that’s a fair point, and you’re absolutely right to suggest that combining emotional or punitive blame with approaches like rehabilitation and restorative justice could be more effective in some cases. Determinism doesn’t prescribe an all-or-nothing shift—it allows for nuance in how we integrate different strategies.

Blame as an emotional or punitive tool has its roots in human evolution, where it likely played a role in deterring harmful behavior and reinforcing social cohesion. Even now, expressions of blame—whether societal or interpersonal—can serve as signals to others about what behaviors are unacceptable. The question, though, is how to balance this natural response with the more constructive strategies we’ve developed.

A blended approach could work if it incorporates the functional aspects of blame—like signaling social norms—while minimizing its potential for harm or perpetuating cycles of resentment and punishment. Rehabilitation, restorative justice, and addressing root causes don’t replace blame; they refine its purpose and channel it into outcomes that reduce harm and build a better society. Emotional blame alone often addresses symptoms without tackling the causes, while a purely restorative approach risks being perceived as too lenient. Together, they might strike a balance.

Determinism doesn’t demand we abandon tools like blame altogether—it just encourages us to use them thoughtfully and in combination with evidence-based practices. If blending these approaches leads to better outcomes, then determinism fully supports such a pragmatic and adaptive strategy.

So ... no actual answer. The rubber just never hits the road does it?

FlashDangerpants, let’s get the rubber to hit the road, then. Here’s the answer: under a deterministic framework, the focus shifts from retribution for its own sake to preventing future harm and addressing the causes of past behavior. It doesn’t mean those vicars “get let off”—far from it. They’d face consequences, but the reasoning behind those consequences would be different.

Punishment in a deterministic model serves a functional purpose. It’s not about satisfying the emotional need for vengeance but about deterrence, rehabilitation, and signaling societal norms. If punishing those who committed heinous acts discourages others from doing the same, reinforces societal boundaries, and provides opportunities to prevent recidivism, then it has a clear role in a deterministic system.

The point isn’t to absolve responsibility but to redefine its purpose. Under determinism, we recognize that those vicars acted within a web of causes—personal histories, societal failings, cultural contexts—but this understanding doesn’t negate consequences. Instead, it compels us to address those causes, both retroactively (holding individuals accountable) and preventatively (creating systems that reduce the likelihood of such behavior).

So yes, they should face punishment, not because retribution “works,” but because it can serve as a deterrent and a tool for protecting society. At the same time, it’s crucial to look beyond punishment to fix the cultural and systemic factors that allowed such abuses to persist. This dual approach—addressing individual actions while tackling systemic causes—is where determinism offers a better way forward. That’s where the rubber meets the road.

[FlashDangerpants]

Atla, that’s a fair point, and you’re absolutely right to suggest that combining emotional or punitive blame with approaches like rehabilitation and restorative justice could be more effective in some cases. Determinism doesn’t prescribe an all-or-nothing shift—it allows for nuance in how we integrate different strategies.

Blame as an emotional or punitive tool has its roots in human evolution, where it likely played a role in deterring harmful behavior and reinforcing social cohesion. Even now, expressions of blame—whether societal or interpersonal—can serve as signals to others about what behaviors are unacceptable. The question, though, is how to balance this natural response with the more constructive strategies we’ve developed.

A blended approach could work if it incorporates the functional aspects of blame—like signaling social norms—while minimizing its potential for harm or perpetuating cycles of resentment and punishment. Rehabilitation, restorative justice, and addressing root causes don’t replace blame; they refine its purpose and channel it into outcomes that reduce harm and build a better society. Emotional blame alone often addresses symptoms without tackling the causes, while a purely restorative approach risks being perceived as too lenient. Together, they might strike a balance.

Determinism doesn’t demand we abandon tools like blame altogether—it just encourages us to use them thoughtfully and in combination with evidence-based practices. If blending these approaches leads to better outcomes, then determinism fully supports such a pragmatic and adaptive strategy.

So ... no actual answer. The rubber just never hits the road does it?

FlashDangerpants, let’s get the rubber to hit the road, then. Here’s the answer: under a deterministic framework, the focus shifts from retribution for its own sake to preventing future harm and addressing the causes of past behavior. It doesn’t mean those vicars “get let off”—far from it. They’d face consequences, but the reasoning behind those consequences would be different.

Punishment in a deterministic model serves a functional purpose. It’s not about satisfying the emotional need for vengeance but about deterrence, rehabilitation, and signaling societal norms. If punishing those who committed heinous acts discourages others from doing the same, reinforces societal boundaries, and provides opportunities to prevent recidivism, then it has a clear role in a deterministic system.

The point isn’t to absolve responsibility but to redefine its purpose. Under determinism, we recognize that those vicars acted within a web of causes—personal histories, societal failings, cultural contexts—but this understanding doesn’t negate consequences. Instead, it compels us to address those causes, both retroactively (holding individuals accountable) and preventatively (creating systems that reduce the likelihood of such behavior).

So yes, they should face punishment, not because retribution “works,” but because it can serve as a deterrent and a tool for protecting society. At the same time, it’s crucial to look beyond punishment to fix the cultural and systemic factors that allowed such abuses to persist. This dual approach—addressing individual actions while tackling systemic causes—is where determinism offers a better way forward. That’s where the rubber meets the road.

Ok, so business as usual, but with an "under new management" sign over the door. Is there any circumstance where the distinction comes with an actual difference?

[BigMike]

No, Mike, I'm talkin' generally now: why is it wrong to cause immediate and personal harm...to the individual?

Henry, the issue with causing immediate and personal harm to an individual—even if justified by some perceived benefit—is that it doesn’t solve the underlying problem. The causes that led to the situation in the first place remain unaddressed.

When harm is inflicted, whether it’s punitive or utilitarian in intent, it’s often a reactive measure rather than a proactive solution. Determinism tells us that every action has causes. If we truly want to fix societal issues or prevent harmful situations, the focus should be on identifying and addressing those causes, not just managing their symptoms through actions like harm or punishment.

Inflicting harm doesn’t eliminate the root causes—it perpetuates cycles of harm and reaction, often creating further consequences that ripple outward. To address the "problem" effectively, we need to understand what caused it, whether it’s systemic failures, cultural factors, or individual circumstances, and work to intervene at those points. Without addressing causes, harm becomes an empty action that fails to create meaningful change.

[accelafine]

Whether or not we change the legal system to be more 'kind and caring' towards murderers and sadistic psychopaths (I don't see how it could be any MORE so already) was determined at the Big Bang anyway, so there's not a lot we can do about it. There are 'rehabilitated' murdererers all over the place, reoffending or not, depending on what they were 'determined' to do at the Big Bang.... I suppose the best you can say about it is that it keeps a lot of 'rehabilitators' in jobs