Moving Beyond the Illusion of Free Will in Governance

[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?

FlashDangerpants, addressing the heinous acts committed by those vicars requires more than reactive blame or retribution—it demands systemic accountability. One significant step forward might be to challenge and limit the church’s ability to perpetuate harmful narratives, particularly those rooted in falsehoods like the existence of the soul, free will, or other unsubstantiated claims.

The church, as an institution, often operates under a shield of moral authority that allows it to propagate ideas without being held to the same standards of evidence demanded in other domains. These unfounded concepts not only shape individual behavior but also create the conditions that allow abuses to persist unchecked, often under the guise of divine forgiveness or moral superiority.

Banning the church from spreading falsehoods without evidence would shift the cultural landscape. It would reduce the unchecked influence of dogma and force a transition to evidence-based frameworks of morality and responsibility. This isn’t about silencing faith—it’s about demanding accountability for the real-world consequences of unverified beliefs. Addressing the root causes of abuse includes dismantling the systems that protect and perpetuate harmful behaviors, and that begins with challenging the narratives that justify them.

[BigMike]

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

The deterministic chain from the Big Bang doesn’t absolve us of action—it explains why we act. Understanding causes allows us to intervene more effectively. Rehabilitation isn’t about kindness; it’s about reducing harm by addressing the root causes of behavior. Determinism doesn’t mean doing nothing—it means doing what works.

[accelafine]

It means doing what we are 'determined' to do, which is exactly what we do...

[BigMike]

It means doing what we are 'determined' to do, which is exactly what we do...

It means doing what we are 'caused' to do, by external influences (including how we cause each other's thoughts and actions) and internal ones, which is exactly what we do...

[henry quirk]

Put aside the initial context, Mike.

Generally speaking: is it wrong to harm a person?

[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?

FlashDangerpants, addressing the heinous acts committed by those vicars requires more than reactive blame or retribution—it demands systemic accountability. One significant step forward might be to challenge and limit the church’s ability to perpetuate harmful narratives, particularly those rooted in falsehoods like the existence of the soul, free will, or other unsubstantiated claims.

The church, as an institution, often operates under a shield of moral authority that allows it to propagate ideas without being held to the same standards of evidence demanded in other domains. These unfounded concepts not only shape individual behavior but also create the conditions that allow abuses to persist unchecked, often under the guise of divine forgiveness or moral superiority.

So you get this far without saying anything that is different to the normal way of doing things but then....

Banning the church from spreading falsehoods without evidence would shift the cultural landscape. It would reduce the unchecked influence of dogma and force a transition to evidence-based frameworks of morality and responsibility. This isn’t about silencing faith—it’s about demanding accountability for the real-world consequences of unverified beliefs. Addressing the root causes of abuse includes dismantling the systems that protect and perpetuate harmful behaviors, and that begins with challenging the narratives that justify them.

... Full Stalinism?

This is some silly stuff Mike.

[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?

FlashDangerpants, addressing the heinous acts committed by those vicars requires more than reactive blame or retribution—it demands systemic accountability. One significant step forward might be to challenge and limit the church’s ability to perpetuate harmful narratives, particularly those rooted in falsehoods like the existence of the soul, free will, or other unsubstantiated claims.

The church, as an institution, often operates under a shield of moral authority that allows it to propagate ideas without being held to the same standards of evidence demanded in other domains. These unfounded concepts not only shape individual behavior but also create the conditions that allow abuses to persist unchecked, often under the guise of divine forgiveness or moral superiority.

So you get this far without saying anything that is different to the normal way of doing things but then....

Banning the church from spreading falsehoods without evidence would shift the cultural landscape. It would reduce the unchecked influence of dogma and force a transition to evidence-based frameworks of morality and responsibility. This isn’t about silencing faith—it’s about demanding accountability for the real-world consequences of unverified beliefs. Addressing the root causes of abuse includes dismantling the systems that protect and perpetuate harmful behaviors, and that begins with challenging the narratives that justify them.

... Full Stalinism?

This is some silly stuff Mike.

FlashDangerpants, asking for and demanding evidence-based truths—especially when dealing with institutions that shape societal values and behaviors—isn't "Full Stalinism." It's simply a call for accountability. Is it Stalinist to expect claims about the soul, free will, or moral authority to be held to the same evidentiary standards we apply in science, medicine, or law? Or is it just a reasonable expectation for shaping a more honest and responsible society?

[FlashDangerpants]

FlashDangerpants, addressing the heinous acts committed by those vicars requires more than reactive blame or retribution—it demands systemic accountability. One significant step forward might be to challenge and limit the church’s ability to perpetuate harmful narratives, particularly those rooted in falsehoods like the existence of the soul, free will, or other unsubstantiated claims.

The church, as an institution, often operates under a shield of moral authority that allows it to propagate ideas without being held to the same standards of evidence demanded in other domains. These unfounded concepts not only shape individual behavior but also create the conditions that allow abuses to persist unchecked, often under the guise of divine forgiveness or moral superiority.

So you get this far without saying anything that is different to the normal way of doing things but then....

Banning the church from spreading falsehoods without evidence would shift the cultural landscape. It would reduce the unchecked influence of dogma and force a transition to evidence-based frameworks of morality and responsibility. This isn’t about silencing faith—it’s about demanding accountability for the real-world consequences of unverified beliefs. Addressing the root causes of abuse includes dismantling the systems that protect and perpetuate harmful behaviors, and that begins with challenging the narratives that justify them.

... Full Stalinism?

This is some silly stuff Mike.

FlashDangerpants, asking for and demanding evidence-based truths—especially when dealing with institutions that shape societal values and behaviors—isn't "Full Stalinism." It's simply a call for accountability. Is it Stalinist to expect claims about the soul, free will, or moral authority to be held to the same evidentiary standards we apply in science, medicine, or law? Or is it just a reasonable expectation for shaping a more honest and responsible society?

Are you accepting the word of the Gospels as evidence? Not likely. The Quran? Highly improbable.

So you want force them to abandon key religious beliefs and obey your new beliefs. Stalinism pure and simple. You are a wannabe dictator.

[BigMike]

Put aside the initial context, Mike.

Generally speaking: is it wrong to harm a person?

Henry, determinism is simply the recognition that everything, including human behavior, has causes rooted in physical interactions. With that understanding, I’d say it is wrong to harm a person, especially when the harm is intended to cause pain or suffering, because their actions are the result of influences beyond their control. Instead of inflicting harm, the focus should be on addressing the causes that led to their behavior and working toward preventing further harm.

[BigMike]

So you get this far without saying anything that is different to the normal way of doing things but then....



... Full Stalinism?

This is some silly stuff Mike.

FlashDangerpants, asking for and demanding evidence-based truths—especially when dealing with institutions that shape societal values and behaviors—isn't "Full Stalinism." It's simply a call for accountability. Is it Stalinist to expect claims about the soul, free will, or moral authority to be held to the same evidentiary standards we apply in science, medicine, or law? Or is it just a reasonable expectation for shaping a more honest and responsible society?

Are you accepting the word of the Gospels as evidence? Not likely. The Quran? Highly improbable.

So you want force them to abandon key religious beliefs and obey your new beliefs. Stalinism pure and simple. You are a wannabe dictator.

Demanding evidence-based accountability isn’t about dictating beliefs or imposing a worldview—it’s about ensuring that claims with real-world consequences are held to a standard of scrutiny. Religious beliefs, like those in the Gospels or Quran, can be personal and sacred to individuals, but when those beliefs influence laws, education, or societal norms, they step into the public domain. At that point, they must be subject to the same evidentiary standards as any other impactful claim.

This isn’t about erasing faith—it’s about limiting the unchecked authority of institutions to propagate unverified assertions that shape policy and behavior. That’s not Stalinism; it’s responsibility. Would you say applying this logic to secular ideologies is dictatorial too, or is the expectation for accountability universal?

[BigMike]

The absence of free will reshapes how we view concepts like free speech, religious freedom, and the indoctrination of children because it compels us to focus on the causes and effects of these practices rather than framing them as exercises of uncaused autonomy. If people act according to prior causes—biological, environmental, and societal—then the dissemination of ideas and beliefs becomes a powerful factor in shaping behavior and future causes.

Free speech, traditionally seen as an inherent right rooted in individual autonomy, must be reassessed. Without free will, speech isn’t simply the expression of independent thought but the result of prior influences acting on the individual. This understanding requires us to ask how speech contributes to the deterministic chain and whether it perpetuates harmful falsehoods or fosters constructive discourse. The value of speech then shifts from its existence as a "right" to its role in shaping outcomes.

Similarly, religious freedom takes on a new dimension. Beliefs are not freely chosen but arise from upbringing, exposure, and societal influences. If religious doctrines, such as the notion of free will or eternal souls, spread unchallenged, they perpetuate causal chains that may conflict with evidence and reality. Protecting religious freedom must then be balanced with the responsibility to ensure these beliefs don’t harm individuals or society by promoting falsehoods or hindering progress.

The indoctrination of children becomes particularly significant in this context. Without free will, children are especially vulnerable to the influences of their environment, including the ideas and beliefs imposed on them by authority figures. Teaching unverifiable doctrines as unquestionable truths isn’t merely the exercise of religious freedom—it’s the shaping of future deterministic pathways in ways that may limit critical thinking and intellectual growth. A deterministic perspective requires us to view such indoctrination as an act with far-reaching consequences, not just for the individual but for society as a whole.

Understanding the lack of free will shifts the focus to the responsibility of shaping influences—speech, religion, or education—in ways that promote truth, well-being, and societal harmony, rather than perpetuating harmful or unfounded ideas. It’s not about silencing; it’s about accountability for the deterministic effects of what we propagate.

[BigMike]

If free will doesn’t exist, voting isn’t an independent act of choice but the outcome of prior causes like upbringing, social influences, media exposure, and systemic factors. This means voting rights take on an even greater importance, not as a matter of personal autonomy, but as a tool for ensuring that everyone’s deterministic pathways—shaped by their environments and circumstances—are represented. At the same time, it calls for greater scrutiny of the influences on voters, such as misinformation or coercion, to ensure that these causal forces lead to informed, equitable decisions rather than manipulation.

[FlashDangerpants]

FlashDangerpants, asking for and demanding evidence-based truths—especially when dealing with institutions that shape societal values and behaviors—isn't "Full Stalinism." It's simply a call for accountability. Is it Stalinist to expect claims about the soul, free will, or moral authority to be held to the same evidentiary standards we apply in science, medicine, or law? Or is it just a reasonable expectation for shaping a more honest and responsible society?

Are you accepting the word of the Gospels as evidence? Not likely. The Quran? Highly improbable.

So you want force them to abandon key religious beliefs and obey your new beliefs. Stalinism pure and simple. You are a wannabe dictator.

Demanding evidence-based accountability isn’t about dictating beliefs or imposing a worldview—it’s about ensuring that claims with real-world consequences are held to a standard of scrutiny. Religious beliefs, like those in the Gospels or Quran, can be personal and sacred to individuals, but when those beliefs influence laws, education, or societal norms, they step into the public domain. At that point, they must be subject to the same evidentiary standards as any other impactful claim.

This isn’t about erasing faith—it’s about limiting the unchecked authority of institutions to propagate unverified assertions that shape policy and behavior. That’s not Stalinism; it’s responsibility. Would you say applying this logic to secular ideologies is dictatorial too, or is the expectation for accountability universal?

And now you've gone back to saying nothing at all. That's just traditional church state separation that didn't need any of this rigmarole about free will.

You backed down from the no blame thing when there was an actual risk of there being an outcome. None of what you are offering does anything at all. Your whole deal has an impotence problem.

[BigMike]

Are you accepting the word of the Gospels as evidence? Not likely. The Quran? Highly improbable.

So you want force them to abandon key religious beliefs and obey your new beliefs. Stalinism pure and simple. You are a wannabe dictator.

Demanding evidence-based accountability isn’t about dictating beliefs or imposing a worldview—it’s about ensuring that claims with real-world consequences are held to a standard of scrutiny. Religious beliefs, like those in the Gospels or Quran, can be personal and sacred to individuals, but when those beliefs influence laws, education, or societal norms, they step into the public domain. At that point, they must be subject to the same evidentiary standards as any other impactful claim.

This isn’t about erasing faith—it’s about limiting the unchecked authority of institutions to propagate unverified assertions that shape policy and behavior. That’s not Stalinism; it’s responsibility. Would you say applying this logic to secular ideologies is dictatorial too, or is the expectation for accountability universal?

And now you've gone back to saying nothing at all. That's just traditional church state separation that didn't need any of this rigmarole about free will.

You backed down from the no blame thing when there was an actual risk of there being an outcome. None of what you are offering does anything at all. Your whole deal has an impotence problem.

The distinction I’m making isn’t just about traditional church-state separation—it’s about recognizing how deterministic causality reshapes the way we approach accountability. Free will, as commonly understood, is the philosophical underpinning for much of how we assign blame and justify actions, both personally and institutionally. By acknowledging that all actions are caused, including those driven by unverified religious claims, we aren’t merely advocating for traditional separation; we’re demanding responsibility for the deterministic effects of spreading unfounded beliefs.

If a belief system influences laws or education in ways that perpetuate harm or hinder progress, then determinism compels us to intervene—not to erase faith, but to ensure its impacts align with evidence and reason. This isn’t "doing nothing"; it’s a direct challenge to the causal chains that allow harmful practices to persist under the guise of freedom. Accountability in a deterministic framework requires more than passive coexistence—it demands proactive engagement with the causes shaping our world.

[FlashDangerpants]

Demanding evidence-based accountability isn’t about dictating beliefs or imposing a worldview—it’s about ensuring that claims with real-world consequences are held to a standard of scrutiny. Religious beliefs, like those in the Gospels or Quran, can be personal and sacred to individuals, but when those beliefs influence laws, education, or societal norms, they step into the public domain. At that point, they must be subject to the same evidentiary standards as any other impactful claim.

This isn’t about erasing faith—it’s about limiting the unchecked authority of institutions to propagate unverified assertions that shape policy and behavior. That’s not Stalinism; it’s responsibility. Would you say applying this logic to secular ideologies is dictatorial too, or is the expectation for accountability universal?

And now you've gone back to saying nothing at all. That's just traditional church state separation that didn't need any of this rigmarole about free will.

You backed down from the no blame thing when there was an actual risk of there being an outcome. None of what you are offering does anything at all. Your whole deal has an impotence problem.

The distinction I’m making isn’t just about traditional church-state separation—it’s about recognizing how deterministic causality reshapes the way we approach accountability. Free will, as commonly understood, is the philosophical underpinning for much of how we assign blame and justify actions, both personally and institutionally. By acknowledging that all actions are caused, including those driven by unverified religious claims, we aren’t merely advocating for traditional separation; we’re demanding responsibility for the deterministic effects of spreading unfounded beliefs.

If a belief system influences laws or education in ways that perpetuate harm or hinder progress, then determinism compels us to intervene—not to erase faith, but to ensure its impacts align with evidence and reason. This isn’t "doing nothing"; it’s a direct challenge to the causal chains that allow harmful practices to persist under the guise of freedom. Accountability in a deterministic framework requires more than passive coexistence—it demands proactive engagement with the causes shaping our world.

Still no rubber on the actual road though. It's just a sign over the door saying "under new management" for a shop selling the same things.

You have no policy outcome at all, it's nothing but slogans.