The Democrat Party Hates America

[BigMike]

I bet you Henry's lunch money that you can't find me one psychopath serial killin mass murdering car stealin war startin drug abusing wife beating determinist (save maybe Althusser). Every one of those sonsabitches believed they had freewill.

That’s exactly it.

The atrocities of history weren’t committed by people saying “I had no choice, the laws of physics made me do it.” They were committed by people who believed they were righteous, justified, and free—free to dominate, to punish, to hurt, to “choose” their path without consequence to cause or conditioning. Every tyrant, every abuser, every zealot marched forward with the conviction that they were acting from personal agency and moral clarity.

The idea of free will has done far more to excuse cruelty than determinism ever has.

Determinists don’t beat their wives and say, “It was my choice.” They look for what caused the harm—so it doesn’t happen again. They don't build prisons on punishment, they build systems that prevent cycles of violence. Determinism isn’t moral relativism—it’s moral engineering. You fix what’s broken. You don’t moralize it into oblivion.

So yeah, keep your lunch money. But Henry might want to save his for bail—because it’s always the “free” men who do the damage.

Yet when people are trying to be excused for the wrong that they do they appeal to not having a choice in the matter. We as a society tend to show leniency when people aren't in control of their actions (to a point).

Every tyrant and Zealot, etc did that because they believed in free will sure. But the reverse is also true, every saint, savior, freedom righter, civil rights activist believed in the freedom awarded to all humans and it motivated them to do better.

If anything the idea of free will has done far more to empower people than harm them (and yes there is evidence to support that claim).

Whereas determinism has been appealed to in order to excuse bad behavior. Just look at the response to "Me Too" movement and men going on about how women dress and how it makes them do the things they do. Or how many parents beat their kids and follow it with "Look what you made me do", same with their wives. They don't "look for what caused the harm" so it doesn't happen it again, they excuse the wrong they do.

Determinism is literally moralizing it into oblivion because if people have no choice or control over their actions then you can't really have any system of morality because the "can't" do otherwise. Morality is based on what we "ought" do better and you can't have that under determinism.

Again, you really don't know your philosophy well enough. The evidence is clear that belief in free will is beneficial for humans and society.

That last line—“the evidence is clear that belief in free will is beneficial for humans and society”—is doing a lot of heavy lifting without checking the weight of its claim. So let’s check it.

Yes, belief in free will can have psychological upsides. It can promote motivation, perseverance, personal responsibility—when it’s wrapped up in a sense of empowerment. But here’s the catch: it also promotes blame, vengeance, punitive justice, and moral condemnation. Belief in free will doesn’t just lift people up—it’s the same tool used to justify throwing people away.

You say people use determinism to excuse behavior? Sure. They misuse it—just like free will is used to justify everything from corporal punishment to genocide. The difference is that determinism, understood correctly, doesn’t eliminate responsibility—it redefines it. If you’re caused to act violently, society should stop the cause, not moralize your biology. That’s not “excusing.” That’s engineering a solution.

You also say morality is based on what we ought to do. True. But under determinism, “ought” doesn’t disappear—it just becomes conditional. If you want less suffering, less violence, more flourishing, then you ought to intervene causally. You educate. You support. You prevent. No gods. No metaphysics. Just effecting change by understanding cause.

And as for saints and civil rights leaders—you’re right, many of them believed in free will. But that doesn’t mean free will caused their greatness. It just means they used the dominant language of their time. What caused their actions? Empathy. Knowledge. Context. Experience. Causal factors every step of the way. Free will was the story—not the engine.

So let’s stop pretending belief in free will is some harmless motivator. It’s the same belief used to justify cruelty, dismiss trauma, and prop up unequal systems. Determinism doesn’t remove meaning—it removes delusion. And it replaces empty judgment with real solutions. That’s not a bug. That’s the feature.

[FlashDangerpants]

It sounds like you don't really understand the problem to really talk about it.

I would say that every single person who has studied philosophy at a university and written papers to be graded by professors on this sort of topic is to some extent broadly in line with my way of thinking on this matter. Whether they are drawn towards free-will, compatibilism, or determinism, they are almost certainly going to downplay the outcome, if not outright deny that there even is one at all.

Conversely, I can definitely tell that none of the people who are saying that determinism makes a large difference has ever been in that position, they are simply too incautious. So, if you ever get to graduate level stuff, you will largely find that nobody takes such reckless positions as are on display in this thread.

[Darkneos]

That’s exactly it.

The atrocities of history weren’t committed by people saying “I had no choice, the laws of physics made me do it.” They were committed by people who believed they were righteous, justified, and free—free to dominate, to punish, to hurt, to “choose” their path without consequence to cause or conditioning. Every tyrant, every abuser, every zealot marched forward with the conviction that they were acting from personal agency and moral clarity.

The idea of free will has done far more to excuse cruelty than determinism ever has.

Determinists don’t beat their wives and say, “It was my choice.” They look for what caused the harm—so it doesn’t happen again. They don't build prisons on punishment, they build systems that prevent cycles of violence. Determinism isn’t moral relativism—it’s moral engineering. You fix what’s broken. You don’t moralize it into oblivion.

So yeah, keep your lunch money. But Henry might want to save his for bail—because it’s always the “free” men who do the damage.

Yet when people are trying to be excused for the wrong that they do they appeal to not having a choice in the matter. We as a society tend to show leniency when people aren't in control of their actions (to a point).

Every tyrant and Zealot, etc did that because they believed in free will sure. But the reverse is also true, every saint, savior, freedom righter, civil rights activist believed in the freedom awarded to all humans and it motivated them to do better.

If anything the idea of free will has done far more to empower people than harm them (and yes there is evidence to support that claim).

Whereas determinism has been appealed to in order to excuse bad behavior. Just look at the response to "Me Too" movement and men going on about how women dress and how it makes them do the things they do. Or how many parents beat their kids and follow it with "Look what you made me do", same with their wives. They don't "look for what caused the harm" so it doesn't happen it again, they excuse the wrong they do.

Determinism is literally moralizing it into oblivion because if people have no choice or control over their actions then you can't really have any system of morality because the "can't" do otherwise. Morality is based on what we "ought" do better and you can't have that under determinism.

Again, you really don't know your philosophy well enough. The evidence is clear that belief in free will is beneficial for humans and society.

That last line—“the evidence is clear that belief in free will is beneficial for humans and society”—is doing a lot of heavy lifting without checking the weight of its claim. So let’s check it.

Yes, belief in free will can have psychological upsides. It can promote motivation, perseverance, personal responsibility—when it’s wrapped up in a sense of empowerment. But here’s the catch: it also promotes blame, vengeance, punitive justice, and moral condemnation. Belief in free will doesn’t just lift people up—it’s the same tool used to justify throwing people away.

You say people use determinism to excuse behavior? Sure. They misuse it—just like free will is used to justify everything from corporal punishment to genocide. The difference is that determinism, understood correctly, doesn’t eliminate responsibility—it redefines it. If you’re caused to act violently, society should stop the cause, not moralize your biology. That’s not “excusing.” That’s engineering a solution.

You also say morality is based on what we ought to do. True. But under determinism, “ought” doesn’t disappear—it just becomes conditional. If you want less suffering, less violence, more flourishing, then you ought to intervene causally. You educate. You support. You prevent. No gods. No metaphysics. Just effecting change by understanding cause.

And as for saints and civil rights leaders—you’re right, many of them believed in free will. But that doesn’t mean free will caused their greatness. It just means they used the dominant language of their time. What caused their actions? Empathy. Knowledge. Context. Experience. Causal factors every step of the way. Free will was the story—not the engine.

So let’s stop pretending belief in free will is some harmless motivator. It’s the same belief used to justify cruelty, dismiss trauma, and prop up unequal systems. Determinism doesn’t remove meaning—it removes delusion. And it replaces empty judgment with real solutions. That’s not a bug. That’s the feature.

Narrow view, as usual.

Blame, vengeance, punitive justice, moral condemnation, all that is also used to help. Society uses such things to keep people from acting out, though it's not always good. But I'd argue the upsides are better than the down, especially since the determinists I've heard don't have any plan for structuring society otherwise.

They don't misuse it, they do what it naturally does. Behavior is excused if you have no choice, it BY DEFINITION eliminates responsibility. what you're talking about doesn't work under determinism because society has no reason to punish someone who can't control themselves. That's like taking a tornado to court.

Ought does disappear under determinism because you can't do otherwise. Even this statement is nonsense:

If you want less suffering, less violence, more flourishing, then you ought to intervene causally

Why? Also they have no choice so there is no point in making such a statement. They don't control their wants, or anything else so what's the point in saying that? If anything they'd have ground to ignore you because they have no choice.

You know that psychologically humans are resistant to changing their minds and determinism just makes it easier not to, because "I can't control it".

But that doesn’t mean free will caused their greatness.

It did. It wasn't the emotions you mentioned (which by the way don't exist under determinism), it was the story. Belief in freedom and right to self determination gives people that power. The STORY IS THE ENGINE. You still don't get it. If they were determinists who didn't believe they had control over their lives it's unlikely they would have rallied to do anything.

So let’s stop pretending belief in free will is some harmless motivator. It’s the same belief used to justify cruelty, dismiss trauma, and prop up unequal systems. Determinism doesn’t remove meaning—it removes delusion. And it replaces empty judgment with real solutions. That’s not a bug. That’s the feature.

Nope, all the research based on human wellbeing and mental health shows the exact opposite so you're in the wrong here. Humans literally feel and do better when they believe they have control over their own lives and can determine their destiny. Literally no evidence supports taking away that belief would be better.

You are arguing for a version of determinism that is NOT reality. Determinism has no real solutions, and you've proven that because you haven't given any, you just INSIST otherwise. And the argument fails like your last one when I pointed out the evidence that shows your view robs people of meaning.

I can't even call what you argue determinism, just delusion. The delusion that things would be better off despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary.

[BigMike]

I can debate whether I mean harmless or meaningless, but certainly it doesn't change anything at all either way. You are wildly over-interpretting the matter. That's fine, you do you, but taking the entire debate so seriously that you would imagine it can reshape society or civilisation is just delusional grandiosity.

What you’re calling “delusional grandiosity,” I’d call an awareness of consequences.

Because yes—ideas shape societies. Not in the abstract, not metaphorically, but concretely. Every justice system, educational framework, moral code, and economic structure is built atop some foundational view of human nature. What kind of creature do we think a person is? That question has always mattered. And it still does.

If you assume people have libertarian free will—that they chose their actions independently of cause—you justify retribution. Punishment becomes moral. Inequality becomes earned. Compassion becomes optional. But if you understand that every action is the output of a deterministic chain—biology, environment, trauma, conditioning—you shift to accountability without blame. You rehabilitate instead of punish. You engineer prevention instead of exacting vengeance. That’s not a parlor game. That’s policy.

You say nothing changes depending on how we frame this? I think history begs to differ. And so does every courtroom, every classroom, every parent, every war, every mercy shown—or withheld.

So no, this isn’t just a debate. It’s a decision point. Between a society that moralizes pain and one that seeks to understand it. Between myth and mechanism. Between punishment and progress.

You can call it delusional if you want. But the alternative is indifference masquerading as detachment. And that’s not neutral. That’s a choice.

History literally shows determinism is a bad way to run society. The concept of "Destiny" has been used to do great harm.

Darkneos, that’s a category error.

You're conflating determinism—the scientific understanding that events unfold through cause and effect—with archaic notions of destiny, which were used to justify monarchy, caste, and oppression. "Destiny" in that sense is mythological fatalism: the idea that the future is written by divine will or some cosmic script. Determinism isn’t that. Not even close.

Determinism doesn’t mean “it’s all already decided so nothing matters.” It means everything has a cause, and if you care about outcomes, you trace the cause. You don’t shrug at suffering—you investigate it, understand it, and intervene. That’s not passivity. That’s precision.

The fact that bad actors in history claimed “destiny” to justify harm doesn’t indict determinism—it indicts mythology and ignorance. If anything, it’s free will that more often enables cruelty: it tells us people “deserve” their suffering because they “chose” badly. That’s the logic of the lash, the prison cell, the death penalty. Determinism replaces that with something rare: understanding without absolution. You’re still accountable—but we fix what broke you, instead of punishing you for breaking.

So let’s get it straight: determinism didn’t build gulags or justify slavery. That was people drunk on power and theology. Determinism is the sober alternative. It asks, “What causes harm—and how do we stop it?” That's not just a better philosophy. That’s how progress happens.

[Darkneos]

What you’re calling “delusional grandiosity,” I’d call an awareness of consequences.

Because yes—ideas shape societies. Not in the abstract, not metaphorically, but concretely. Every justice system, educational framework, moral code, and economic structure is built atop some foundational view of human nature. What kind of creature do we think a person is? That question has always mattered. And it still does.

If you assume people have libertarian free will—that they chose their actions independently of cause—you justify retribution. Punishment becomes moral. Inequality becomes earned. Compassion becomes optional. But if you understand that every action is the output of a deterministic chain—biology, environment, trauma, conditioning—you shift to accountability without blame. You rehabilitate instead of punish. You engineer prevention instead of exacting vengeance. That’s not a parlor game. That’s policy.

You say nothing changes depending on how we frame this? I think history begs to differ. And so does every courtroom, every classroom, every parent, every war, every mercy shown—or withheld.

So no, this isn’t just a debate. It’s a decision point. Between a society that moralizes pain and one that seeks to understand it. Between myth and mechanism. Between punishment and progress.

You can call it delusional if you want. But the alternative is indifference masquerading as detachment. And that’s not neutral. That’s a choice.

History literally shows determinism is a bad way to run society. The concept of "Destiny" has been used to do great harm.

Darkneos, that’s a category error.

You're conflating determinism—the scientific understanding that events unfold through cause and effect—with archaic notions of destiny, which were used to justify monarchy, caste, and oppression. "Destiny" in that sense is mythological fatalism: the idea that the future is written by divine will or some cosmic script. Determinism isn’t that. Not even close.

Determinism doesn’t mean “it’s all already decided so nothing matters.” It means everything has a cause, and if you care about outcomes, you trace the cause. You don’t shrug at suffering—you investigate it, understand it, and intervene. That’s not passivity. That’s precision.

The fact that bad actors in history claimed “destiny” to justify harm doesn’t indict determinism—it indicts mythology and ignorance. If anything, it’s free will that more often enables cruelty: it tells us people “deserve” their suffering because they “chose” badly. That’s the logic of the lash, the prison cell, the death penalty. Determinism replaces that with something rare: understanding without absolution. You’re still accountable—but we fix what broke you, instead of punishing you for breaking.

So let’s get it straight: determinism didn’t build gulags or justify slavery. That was people drunk on power and theology. Determinism is the sober alternative. It asks, “What causes harm—and how do we stop it?” That's not just a better philosophy. That’s how progress happens.

Destiny is determinism.

Determinism also means it's all decided and nothing matters. The point is you have no control, that includes whether you care about the outcome.

You don’t shrug at suffering—you investigate it, understand it, and intervene. That’s not passivity. That’s precision.

You do shrug at suffering, because you have no control. That's not precision either, again what you are advocating is rooted in the belief in free will. Most of our actions are.

It does indict determinism, the point being that folks have to accept it because they can't do otherwise. Belief in free will motivates people to change, determinism does not. You CANNOT be accountable under determinism, you can under free will because you made a choice. Honestly...you have to know that much.

So let’s get it straight: determinism didn’t build gulags or justify slavery. That was people drunk on power and theology. Determinism is the sober alternative. It asks, “What causes harm—and how do we stop it?” That's not just a better philosophy. That’s how progress happens.

It did. People who believed it was gods will, that some people are beyond help. You're kidding yourself if you think it's the sober alternative. That's also not how progress happens, progress happened because people have believed in free will. If they didn't they never would have.

You're thinking is...still...too narrow and you advocate for a determinism that doesn't exist.

[BigMike]

Yet when people are trying to be excused for the wrong that they do they appeal to not having a choice in the matter. We as a society tend to show leniency when people aren't in control of their actions (to a point).

Every tyrant and Zealot, etc did that because they believed in free will sure. But the reverse is also true, every saint, savior, freedom righter, civil rights activist believed in the freedom awarded to all humans and it motivated them to do better.

If anything the idea of free will has done far more to empower people than harm them (and yes there is evidence to support that claim).

Whereas determinism has been appealed to in order to excuse bad behavior. Just look at the response to "Me Too" movement and men going on about how women dress and how it makes them do the things they do. Or how many parents beat their kids and follow it with "Look what you made me do", same with their wives. They don't "look for what caused the harm" so it doesn't happen it again, they excuse the wrong they do.

Determinism is literally moralizing it into oblivion because if people have no choice or control over their actions then you can't really have any system of morality because the "can't" do otherwise. Morality is based on what we "ought" do better and you can't have that under determinism.

Again, you really don't know your philosophy well enough. The evidence is clear that belief in free will is beneficial for humans and society.

That last line—“the evidence is clear that belief in free will is beneficial for humans and society”—is doing a lot of heavy lifting without checking the weight of its claim. So let’s check it.

Yes, belief in free will can have psychological upsides. It can promote motivation, perseverance, personal responsibility—when it’s wrapped up in a sense of empowerment. But here’s the catch: it also promotes blame, vengeance, punitive justice, and moral condemnation. Belief in free will doesn’t just lift people up—it’s the same tool used to justify throwing people away.

You say people use determinism to excuse behavior? Sure. They misuse it—just like free will is used to justify everything from corporal punishment to genocide. The difference is that determinism, understood correctly, doesn’t eliminate responsibility—it redefines it. If you’re caused to act violently, society should stop the cause, not moralize your biology. That’s not “excusing.” That’s engineering a solution.

You also say morality is based on what we ought to do. True. But under determinism, “ought” doesn’t disappear—it just becomes conditional. If you want less suffering, less violence, more flourishing, then you ought to intervene causally. You educate. You support. You prevent. No gods. No metaphysics. Just effecting change by understanding cause.

And as for saints and civil rights leaders—you’re right, many of them believed in free will. But that doesn’t mean free will caused their greatness. It just means they used the dominant language of their time. What caused their actions? Empathy. Knowledge. Context. Experience. Causal factors every step of the way. Free will was the story—not the engine.

So let’s stop pretending belief in free will is some harmless motivator. It’s the same belief used to justify cruelty, dismiss trauma, and prop up unequal systems. Determinism doesn’t remove meaning—it removes delusion. And it replaces empty judgment with real solutions. That’s not a bug. That’s the feature.

Narrow view, as usual.

Blame, vengeance, punitive justice, moral condemnation, all that is also used to help. Society uses such things to keep people from acting out, though it's not always good. But I'd argue the upsides are better than the down, especially since the determinists I've heard don't have any plan for structuring society otherwise.

They don't misuse it, they do what it naturally does. Behavior is excused if you have no choice, it BY DEFINITION eliminates responsibility. what you're talking about doesn't work under determinism because society has no reason to punish someone who can't control themselves. That's like taking a tornado to court.

Ought does disappear under determinism because you can't do otherwise. Even this statement is nonsense:

If you want less suffering, less violence, more flourishing, then you ought to intervene causally

Why? Also they have no choice so there is no point in making such a statement. They don't control their wants, or anything else so what's the point in saying that? If anything they'd have ground to ignore you because they have no choice.

You know that psychologically humans are resistant to changing their minds and determinism just makes it easier not to, because "I can't control it".

But that doesn’t mean free will caused their greatness.

It did. It wasn't the emotions you mentioned (which by the way don't exist under determinism), it was the story. Belief in freedom and right to self determination gives people that power. The STORY IS THE ENGINE. You still don't get it. If they were determinists who didn't believe they had control over their lives it's unlikely they would have rallied to do anything.

So let’s stop pretending belief in free will is some harmless motivator. It’s the same belief used to justify cruelty, dismiss trauma, and prop up unequal systems. Determinism doesn’t remove meaning—it removes delusion. And it replaces empty judgment with real solutions. That’s not a bug. That’s the feature.

Nope, all the research based on human wellbeing and mental health shows the exact opposite so you're in the wrong here. Humans literally feel and do better when they believe they have control over their own lives and can determine their destiny. Literally no evidence supports taking away that belief would be better.

You are arguing for a version of determinism that is NOT reality. Determinism has no real solutions, and you've proven that because you haven't given any, you just INSIST otherwise. And the argument fails like your last one when I pointed out the evidence that shows your view robs people of meaning.

I can't even call what you argue determinism, just delusion. The delusion that things would be better off despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary.

You're confusing emotional comfort with truth—and you're clinging to a comforting myth because the truth doesn’t stroke your ego.

Yes, belief in free will feels good. So does believing you’re the hero of your story. But that doesn’t make it true. Santa Claus makes children feel secure and joyful. That doesn’t make him real.

You say determinism “eliminates responsibility.” No—it eliminates blame, which is not the same thing. Blame is about retribution. Responsibility is about response. Determinism shifts the goal from “punishing evil” to understanding causality and preventing harm. And yes, that works. That’s why we treat mental illness and trauma-informed care as interventions, not moral failings.

You say “ought” disappears under determinism. It doesn’t. It becomes instrumental. If you want X, and Y leads to X, then you ought to do Y. That’s how science, medicine, education, and engineering work. “Ought” isn’t about divine command. It’s about cause and effect.

Now, about that “story.” You’re saying the myth of free will caused the civil rights movement. That’s absurd. It wasn’t a story that created courage. It was history. Oppression. Community. Injustice. Solidarity. All causes. All real. People didn’t act because they were “free.” They acted because something made them act. Belief in freedom was part of the causal chain, not the unmoved mover.

And your go-to argument—“the research says”—fails if you don’t cite it. I’ve read the same studies. Some suggest that a belief in agency helps motivation. Sure. But that doesn’t mean we need to lie to ourselves to function. It means we need to update our models. We can design systems that support dignity and motivation without the metaphysical baggage of free will. It’s been done. Look at neuroscience-informed rehabilitation programs. Look at education based on executive function and developmental psychology. Look at behavior science. Those are deterministic. And they work.

You’re so committed to the myth that you can’t see how much harm it does. Every time someone says, “They chose to be poor,” or “He deserves to rot in prison,” or “She brought it on herself”—that’s your precious free will at work.

So no, I don’t accept your emotional appeal as evidence. You’re defending fantasy because reality makes you uncomfortable. But discomfort is where growth begins. And if determinism is uncomfortable, good. That means it’s touching a nerve worth examining.

[BigMike]

History literally shows determinism is a bad way to run society. The concept of "Destiny" has been used to do great harm.

Darkneos, that’s a category error.

You're conflating determinism—the scientific understanding that events unfold through cause and effect—with archaic notions of destiny, which were used to justify monarchy, caste, and oppression. "Destiny" in that sense is mythological fatalism: the idea that the future is written by divine will or some cosmic script. Determinism isn’t that. Not even close.

Determinism doesn’t mean “it’s all already decided so nothing matters.” It means everything has a cause, and if you care about outcomes, you trace the cause. You don’t shrug at suffering—you investigate it, understand it, and intervene. That’s not passivity. That’s precision.

The fact that bad actors in history claimed “destiny” to justify harm doesn’t indict determinism—it indicts mythology and ignorance. If anything, it’s free will that more often enables cruelty: it tells us people “deserve” their suffering because they “chose” badly. That’s the logic of the lash, the prison cell, the death penalty. Determinism replaces that with something rare: understanding without absolution. You’re still accountable—but we fix what broke you, instead of punishing you for breaking.

So let’s get it straight: determinism didn’t build gulags or justify slavery. That was people drunk on power and theology. Determinism is the sober alternative. It asks, “What causes harm—and how do we stop it?” That's not just a better philosophy. That’s how progress happens.

Destiny is determinism.

Determinism also means it's all decided and nothing matters. The point is you have no control, that includes whether you care about the outcome.

You don’t shrug at suffering—you investigate it, understand it, and intervene. That’s not passivity. That’s precision.

You do shrug at suffering, because you have no control. That's not precision either, again what you are advocating is rooted in the belief in free will. Most of our actions are.

It does indict determinism, the point being that folks have to accept it because they can't do otherwise. Belief in free will motivates people to change, determinism does not. You CANNOT be accountable under determinism, you can under free will because you made a choice. Honestly...you have to know that much.

So let’s get it straight: determinism didn’t build gulags or justify slavery. That was people drunk on power and theology. Determinism is the sober alternative. It asks, “What causes harm—and how do we stop it?” That's not just a better philosophy. That’s how progress happens.

It did. People who believed it was gods will, that some people are beyond help. You're kidding yourself if you think it's the sober alternative. That's also not how progress happens, progress happened because people have believed in free will. If they didn't they never would have.

You're thinking is...still...too narrow and you advocate for a determinism that doesn't exist.

You're confusing concepts again, Darkneos—and it's not a small mistake.

Determinism is a scientific framework. It describes how events follow from prior causes according to the laws of nature. No mysticism, no divine plan, no teleology. Just physics, chemistry, biology, psychology—each layer unfolding from the one beneath it. It’s not destiny. Destiny presupposes intention, purpose, a cosmic goal. Determinism doesn’t. It’s not about where you’ll end up. It’s about why things happen.

You keep saying, “Under determinism, nothing matters.” But that’s projection, not logic. Saying “nothing matters” assumes that mattering requires magic. It doesn’t. If I care whether a child suffers, and I know I can causally intervene to reduce that suffering, then that matters—even if my concern, my capacity, and my action are all caused. Caring doesn’t need to be metaphysical. It needs to be effective.

And no, you don’t need libertarian free will for accountability. You just need a model where actions have effects and people are shaped by experience. That’s what restorative justice is built on. That’s what trauma-informed education does. That’s what successful drug rehabilitation programs rely on. Not free will—feedback loops. That’s responsibility as responsiveness, not retribution.

You also say, “Belief in free will motivates people to change.” Sure. Sometimes. So did belief in divine right, or nationalism, or racial superiority. Motivation is morally neutral. The question isn’t “Does it motivate?” The question is “Does it motivate toward truth and compassion, or toward delusion and harm?” Free will is just as often a weapon as a balm. Determinism, when understood properly, doesn’t drain action—it informs it.

Progress didn’t happen because people believed in free will. It happened because people observed injustice, felt empathy, learned from past failure, and organized in response to structural causes. All deterministically. Free will was just the story they used to make sense of it. But stories aren’t engines. They’re labels on the fuel tank.

And if you're going to say determinism “doesn’t exist,” then take it up with physics. The conservation laws. The four fundamental interactions. The whole causal architecture of the universe. That’s determinism—not a philosophy you dislike, but the reality you're already living in.

So, no—I don’t accept your definition. And I won’t let you turn scientific causality into a cartoon villain because you find it emotionally inconvenient. Grow with the truth, or keep clinging to your fantasy of control. But don’t pretend the facts are on your side. They're not.

[accelafine]

It sounds like you don't really understand the problem to really talk about it.

I would say that every single person who has studied philosophy at a university and written papers to be graded by professors on this sort of topic is to some extent broadly in line with my way of thinking on this matter. Whether they are drawn towards free-will, compatibilism, or determinism, they are almost certainly going to downplay the outcome, if not outright deny that there even is one at all.

Conversely, I can definitely tell that none of the people who are saying that determinism makes a large difference has ever been in that position, they are simply too incautious. So, if you ever get to graduate level stuff, you will largely find that nobody takes such reckless positions as are on display in this thread.

Yet it's not a philosophical question--it's a scientific one. 'Free will' is a religious concept and therefore suspect by default.

[FlashDangerpants]

It sounds like you don't really understand the problem to really talk about it.

I would say that every single person who has studied philosophy at a university and written papers to be graded by professors on this sort of topic is to some extent broadly in line with my way of thinking on this matter. Whether they are drawn towards free-will, compatibilism, or determinism, they are almost certainly going to downplay the outcome, if not outright deny that there even is one at all.

Conversely, I can definitely tell that none of the people who are saying that determinism makes a large difference has ever been in that position, they are simply too incautious. So, if you ever get to graduate level stuff, you will largely find that nobody takes such reckless positions as are on display in this thread.

Yet it's not a philosophical question--it's a scientific one. 'Free will' is a religious concept and therefore suspect by default.

That's the dumbest thing that has been written in this thread.

[accelafine]

I would say that every single person who has studied philosophy at a university and written papers to be graded by professors on this sort of topic is to some extent broadly in line with my way of thinking on this matter. Whether they are drawn towards free-will, compatibilism, or determinism, they are almost certainly going to downplay the outcome, if not outright deny that there even is one at all.

Conversely, I can definitely tell that none of the people who are saying that determinism makes a large difference has ever been in that position, they are simply too incautious. So, if you ever get to graduate level stuff, you will largely find that nobody takes such reckless positions as are on display in this thread.

Yet it's not a philosophical question--it's a scientific one. 'Free will' is a religious concept and therefore suspect by default.

That's the dumbest thing that has been written in this thread.

Why? That's rhetorical of course. You won't bother to answer Mr. know-it-all. You never do, just like you 'know' Trump is 'dying'. Dipshit.

[FlashDangerpants]

Yet it's not a philosophical question--it's a scientific one. 'Free will' is a religious concept and therefore suspect by default.

That's the dumbest thing that has been written in this thread.

Why? That's rhetorical of course. You won't bother to answer Mr. know-it-all. You never do, just like you 'know' Trump is 'dying'. Dipshit.

Just Google "mataphysics of free will" and sort yourself out. You've spent years on this site, why suddenly pretend to have an interest in philosophy today?

[Darkneos]

Darkneos, that’s a category error.

You're conflating determinism—the scientific understanding that events unfold through cause and effect—with archaic notions of destiny, which were used to justify monarchy, caste, and oppression. "Destiny" in that sense is mythological fatalism: the idea that the future is written by divine will or some cosmic script. Determinism isn’t that. Not even close.

Determinism doesn’t mean “it’s all already decided so nothing matters.” It means everything has a cause, and if you care about outcomes, you trace the cause. You don’t shrug at suffering—you investigate it, understand it, and intervene. That’s not passivity. That’s precision.

The fact that bad actors in history claimed “destiny” to justify harm doesn’t indict determinism—it indicts mythology and ignorance. If anything, it’s free will that more often enables cruelty: it tells us people “deserve” their suffering because they “chose” badly. That’s the logic of the lash, the prison cell, the death penalty. Determinism replaces that with something rare: understanding without absolution. You’re still accountable—but we fix what broke you, instead of punishing you for breaking.

So let’s get it straight: determinism didn’t build gulags or justify slavery. That was people drunk on power and theology. Determinism is the sober alternative. It asks, “What causes harm—and how do we stop it?” That's not just a better philosophy. That’s how progress happens.

Destiny is determinism.

Determinism also means it's all decided and nothing matters. The point is you have no control, that includes whether you care about the outcome.

You don’t shrug at suffering—you investigate it, understand it, and intervene. That’s not passivity. That’s precision.

You do shrug at suffering, because you have no control. That's not precision either, again what you are advocating is rooted in the belief in free will. Most of our actions are.

It does indict determinism, the point being that folks have to accept it because they can't do otherwise. Belief in free will motivates people to change, determinism does not. You CANNOT be accountable under determinism, you can under free will because you made a choice. Honestly...you have to know that much.

So let’s get it straight: determinism didn’t build gulags or justify slavery. That was people drunk on power and theology. Determinism is the sober alternative. It asks, “What causes harm—and how do we stop it?” That's not just a better philosophy. That’s how progress happens.

It did. People who believed it was gods will, that some people are beyond help. You're kidding yourself if you think it's the sober alternative. That's also not how progress happens, progress happened because people have believed in free will. If they didn't they never would have.

You're thinking is...still...too narrow and you advocate for a determinism that doesn't exist.

You're confusing concepts again, Darkneos—and it's not a small mistake.

Determinism is a scientific framework. It describes how events follow from prior causes according to the laws of nature. No mysticism, no divine plan, no teleology. Just physics, chemistry, biology, psychology—each layer unfolding from the one beneath it. It’s not destiny. Destiny presupposes intention, purpose, a cosmic goal. Determinism doesn’t. It’s not about where you’ll end up. It’s about why things happen.

You keep saying, “Under determinism, nothing matters.” But that’s projection, not logic. Saying “nothing matters” assumes that mattering requires magic. It doesn’t. If I care whether a child suffers, and I know I can causally intervene to reduce that suffering, then that matters—even if my concern, my capacity, and my action are all caused. Caring doesn’t need to be metaphysical. It needs to be effective.

And no, you don’t need libertarian free will for accountability. You just need a model where actions have effects and people are shaped by experience. That’s what restorative justice is built on. That’s what trauma-informed education does. That’s what successful drug rehabilitation programs rely on. Not free will—feedback loops. That’s responsibility as responsiveness, not retribution.

You also say, “Belief in free will motivates people to change.” Sure. Sometimes. So did belief in divine right, or nationalism, or racial superiority. Motivation is morally neutral. The question isn’t “Does it motivate?” The question is “Does it motivate toward truth and compassion, or toward delusion and harm?” Free will is just as often a weapon as a balm. Determinism, when understood properly, doesn’t drain action—it informs it.

Progress didn’t happen because people believed in free will. It happened because people observed injustice, felt empathy, learned from past failure, and organized in response to structural causes. All deterministically. Free will was just the story they used to make sense of it. But stories aren’t engines. They’re labels on the fuel tank.

And if you're going to say determinism “doesn’t exist,” then take it up with physics. The conservation laws. The four fundamental interactions. The whole causal architecture of the universe. That’s determinism—not a philosophy you dislike, but the reality you're already living in.

So, no—I don’t accept your definition. And I won’t let you turn scientific causality into a cartoon villain because you find it emotionally inconvenient. Grow with the truth, or keep clinging to your fantasy of control. But don’t pretend the facts are on your side. They're not.

Determinism isn't a scientific framework, it's a metaphysical view.

I also already explained how things are meaningless under determinism, you have to do better than just insist they aren't. Give evidence. Stop strawmanning with "magic".

You do need free will for accountability, that's the only way the idea works. Under determinism accountability is incoherent.

The question isn't "does it motivate toward truth, compassion" or any of that stuff, the question simply is "does it motivate" and it does. You are appealing to consequences of that motivation (which is a logical error).

Progress happened because of the default belief in free will, that we have power to make things other than they simply are. Every social justice movement is built on that principle, refusal to accept the state of things. Heck most of their literature is dripping with the idea.

Again you're arguing for a determinism that doesn't exist and you have no evidence that removing the belief in free will does any good. For someone who believes in scientific causation you have ZERO evidence for your claims.

But even under determinism it would still be better to keep the belief in free will even if it might be an illusion because it has the effect of positive change for humanity (and there is data on that one).

Sorry dude, the facts ARE on my side, not yours. You have no studies, no data, to prove that getting rid of the belief in free will is better than leaving it, and I have plenty. You also have no plan on how to make it work other than insisting it will.

Again, narrow thinking. You have to do better than mere insistence, but I realize you have no data or research to support that so it's all you got.

Progress didn’t happen because people believed in free will. It happened because people observed injustice, felt empathy, learned from past failure, and organized in response to structural causes. All deterministically. Free will was just the story they used to make sense of it. But stories aren’t engines. They’re labels on the fuel tank.

This has been proven false. Determinism didn't do that, it was the story. The stories humans tell ARE the engines that drive us to do things, that's part of being a social animal.

You cannot be this dumb...

[accelafine]

That's the dumbest thing that has been written in this thread.

Why? That's rhetorical of course. You won't bother to answer Mr. know-it-all. You never do, just like you 'know' Trump is 'dying'. Dipshit.

Just Google "mataphysics of free will" and sort yourself out. You've spent years on this site, why suddenly pretend to have an interest in philosophy today?

Well if you can just 'ggogle' the 'answer' under 'metaphysics' then what's to argue about?

Early philosophers were what we now call physicists i.e. they were interested in actual answers instead of endless circular arguments.

[Darkneos]

That last line—“the evidence is clear that belief in free will is beneficial for humans and society”—is doing a lot of heavy lifting without checking the weight of its claim. So let’s check it.

Yes, belief in free will can have psychological upsides. It can promote motivation, perseverance, personal responsibility—when it’s wrapped up in a sense of empowerment. But here’s the catch: it also promotes blame, vengeance, punitive justice, and moral condemnation. Belief in free will doesn’t just lift people up—it’s the same tool used to justify throwing people away.

You say people use determinism to excuse behavior? Sure. They misuse it—just like free will is used to justify everything from corporal punishment to genocide. The difference is that determinism, understood correctly, doesn’t eliminate responsibility—it redefines it. If you’re caused to act violently, society should stop the cause, not moralize your biology. That’s not “excusing.” That’s engineering a solution.

You also say morality is based on what we ought to do. True. But under determinism, “ought” doesn’t disappear—it just becomes conditional. If you want less suffering, less violence, more flourishing, then you ought to intervene causally. You educate. You support. You prevent. No gods. No metaphysics. Just effecting change by understanding cause.

And as for saints and civil rights leaders—you’re right, many of them believed in free will. But that doesn’t mean free will caused their greatness. It just means they used the dominant language of their time. What caused their actions? Empathy. Knowledge. Context. Experience. Causal factors every step of the way. Free will was the story—not the engine.

So let’s stop pretending belief in free will is some harmless motivator. It’s the same belief used to justify cruelty, dismiss trauma, and prop up unequal systems. Determinism doesn’t remove meaning—it removes delusion. And it replaces empty judgment with real solutions. That’s not a bug. That’s the feature.

Narrow view, as usual.

Blame, vengeance, punitive justice, moral condemnation, all that is also used to help. Society uses such things to keep people from acting out, though it's not always good. But I'd argue the upsides are better than the down, especially since the determinists I've heard don't have any plan for structuring society otherwise.

They don't misuse it, they do what it naturally does. Behavior is excused if you have no choice, it BY DEFINITION eliminates responsibility. what you're talking about doesn't work under determinism because society has no reason to punish someone who can't control themselves. That's like taking a tornado to court.

Ought does disappear under determinism because you can't do otherwise. Even this statement is nonsense:

If you want less suffering, less violence, more flourishing, then you ought to intervene causally

Why? Also they have no choice so there is no point in making such a statement. They don't control their wants, or anything else so what's the point in saying that? If anything they'd have ground to ignore you because they have no choice.

You know that psychologically humans are resistant to changing their minds and determinism just makes it easier not to, because "I can't control it".

But that doesn’t mean free will caused their greatness.

It did. It wasn't the emotions you mentioned (which by the way don't exist under determinism), it was the story. Belief in freedom and right to self determination gives people that power. The STORY IS THE ENGINE. You still don't get it. If they were determinists who didn't believe they had control over their lives it's unlikely they would have rallied to do anything.

So let’s stop pretending belief in free will is some harmless motivator. It’s the same belief used to justify cruelty, dismiss trauma, and prop up unequal systems. Determinism doesn’t remove meaning—it removes delusion. And it replaces empty judgment with real solutions. That’s not a bug. That’s the feature.

Nope, all the research based on human wellbeing and mental health shows the exact opposite so you're in the wrong here. Humans literally feel and do better when they believe they have control over their own lives and can determine their destiny. Literally no evidence supports taking away that belief would be better.

You are arguing for a version of determinism that is NOT reality. Determinism has no real solutions, and you've proven that because you haven't given any, you just INSIST otherwise. And the argument fails like your last one when I pointed out the evidence that shows your view robs people of meaning.

I can't even call what you argue determinism, just delusion. The delusion that things would be better off despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary.

You're confusing emotional comfort with truth—and you're clinging to a comforting myth because the truth doesn’t stroke your ego.

Yes, belief in free will feels good. So does believing you’re the hero of your story. But that doesn’t make it true. Santa Claus makes children feel secure and joyful. That doesn’t make him real.

You say determinism “eliminates responsibility.” No—it eliminates blame, which is not the same thing. Blame is about retribution. Responsibility is about response. Determinism shifts the goal from “punishing evil” to understanding causality and preventing harm. And yes, that works. That’s why we treat mental illness and trauma-informed care as interventions, not moral failings.

You say “ought” disappears under determinism. It doesn’t. It becomes instrumental. If you want X, and Y leads to X, then you ought to do Y. That’s how science, medicine, education, and engineering work. “Ought” isn’t about divine command. It’s about cause and effect.

Now, about that “story.” You’re saying the myth of free will caused the civil rights movement. That’s absurd. It wasn’t a story that created courage. It was history. Oppression. Community. Injustice. Solidarity. All causes. All real. People didn’t act because they were “free.” They acted because something made them act. Belief in freedom was part of the causal chain, not the unmoved mover.

And your go-to argument—“the research says”—fails if you don’t cite it. I’ve read the same studies. Some suggest that a belief in agency helps motivation. Sure. But that doesn’t mean we need to lie to ourselves to function. It means we need to update our models. We can design systems that support dignity and motivation without the metaphysical baggage of free will. It’s been done. Look at neuroscience-informed rehabilitation programs. Look at education based on executive function and developmental psychology. Look at behavior science. Those are deterministic. And they work.

You’re so committed to the myth that you can’t see how much harm it does. Every time someone says, “They chose to be poor,” or “He deserves to rot in prison,” or “She brought it on herself”—that’s your precious free will at work.

So no, I don’t accept your emotional appeal as evidence. You’re defending fantasy because reality makes you uncomfortable. But discomfort is where growth begins. And if determinism is uncomfortable, good. That means it’s touching a nerve worth examining.

You're the one clinging to fantasy here, I don't know how else to explain that what you advocate isn't determinism.

Reread everything I've written before replying because I'm tried of the repeating myself to someone who doesn't understand their own philosophy.

Now, about that “story.” You’re saying the myth of free will caused the civil rights movement. That’s absurd. It wasn’t a story that created courage. It was history. Oppression. Community. Injustice. Solidarity. All causes. All real. People didn’t act because they were “free.” They acted because something made them act. Belief in freedom was part of the causal chain, not the unmoved mover.

ALL OF THAT IS THE STORY YOU IDIOT!!! God...

Do better than mere insistence...entertaining you fantasy of what you believe determinism to be is getting old.

You’re so committed to the myth that you can’t see how much harm it does. Every time someone says, “They chose to be poor,” or “He deserves to rot in prison,” or “She brought it on herself”—that’s your precious free will at work.

It's not, and the fact you think so just shows how narrow your view is, which explains your writing.

And your go-to argument—“the research says”—fails if you don’t cite it. I’ve read the same studies. Some suggest that a belief in agency helps motivation. Sure. But that doesn’t mean we need to lie to ourselves to function. It means we need to update our models. We can design systems that support dignity and motivation without the metaphysical baggage of free will. It’s been done. Look at neuroscience-informed rehabilitation programs. Look at education based on executive function and developmental psychology. Look at behavior science. Those are deterministic. And they work.

We lie to ourselves every day to function, that is also part of determinism. We believe we'll survive the month despite no evidence showing it, that food is safe, etc. Every day we operate on useful illusions, that's human life, an also compatible with "Determinism". We lie to ourselves every day to function, neuroscience proves that much as well. Our experience of the world is a "lie" in that our brains model reality to help us navigate it and use predictions to cover the rest.

Dignity and motivation are also part of belief in free will. When you believe you have a choice and can change it makes it likely you'll do so, studies show that. Too many choices can paralyze you but having none leads to depression.

Look at neuroscience-informed rehabilitation programs. Look at education based on executive function and developmental psychology. Look at behavior science. Those are deterministic. And they work.

Vague gesturing with no studies, you have nothing. That also doesn't address that everything in culture and society depends on belief in free will, even what we value and our entertainment. Can you imagine how different sports competitions would be under determinism? Neither team would feel like "They" won because it was due to outcomes beyond their control and not person effort or will.

There is no education based on executive function or developmental psychology. Behavior science has also largely been hit and miss with ability to predict humans. They don't work and they are far from deterministic. Same with neuroscience-informed rehab.

Again you think too small, you aren't seeing what motivates people and how society works, even you still believe in free will as well (it's the only way your philosophy works). In fact I'd argue the rest of that works because of the belief in free will. Again, you grossly underestimate how much in impacts EVERYTHING in science and society. That's why some people with actual degrees still don't have a plan for what to do to remove that belief.

Why? Because they all realize how much society depends on that belief (which still factors into determinism mind you).

You haven't read anything otherwise I wouldn't have to repeat myself each time. All I can say is that you have given this zero thought because you have no plan, no idea what it would do to society, just mere insistence it'll "work out" (which by the way is the source of many disasters).

Determinism isn't about dispelling illusions, that's the stupid view. It recognizes some illusions are beneficial and useful due to the effects they have, like free will, and that removing them would cause harm (again we have TONS of psychological data showing that loss of agency or feeling of control over ones life has negative mental health consequences and leads to suicide).

How do you think human social interactions will also go when people learn there was no choice in who was going to be with them or not? Bleak, considering how much free will (or belief in it) is factored into our interactions with people.

You also don't see how people stop existing under determinism, it's just physics playing out. There is no independently existing agent making choices or decisions, it's all elementary particles.

You severely underestimate how deep the belief of free will is tied into society and what it affects (that includes emotions).

To put it bluntly, you're just wrong on this.

[henry quirk]

Mike, you sure do have a lotta faith in them blind, amoral, deterministic forces. Them forces are gonna jigger our particles in just the right way and we'll all get that blameless utopia we dreamed about as lil meat machines. All we gotta do is get out of the way and...er...I mean, all we gotta do is hope the forces move us out of...oh...well...I mean, all we gotta do is wait for the forces to get us to hope the forces move us out of...hmmm....ah!...I got it!...all we can do is continue to be the conduits for blind, amoral, deterministic forces and sumthin' will happen. That's probably all that can be said about your philosophy, Horatio, if it's true. If it's not, then, as I say, teaching free wills they aren't responsible for their choices, that their choices are illusory, can only lead to atrocity.

-----

There you go again: blamin' meat machines for thoughts, feelings, and actions they have no say-so over. That tyrant has no more of a choice in exterminating his people than you have in promotin' determinism. And, if you're right, given the proper application of blind, amoral, deterministic forces, you might do the same, butcherin' hundreds, thousands, millions of other meat machines.

-----

Oh, bein' able to choose and not be a slave to blind, amoral, deterministic forces seems pretty potent to me. Bein' responsible for my choices, that too seems potent. What's impotent is bein' meat that only does what blind, amoral, deterministic forces drive it to. Of course, it's just meat, so who gives a flip. But what if we are, each of us, libertarian free wills: what then? What happens if you teach a world of free wills that they're meat machines?

-----

Flash, everybody else got some kind of response. Me? Nada. Why do you hate me so, Flash?