South Africa: difficulty getting good information

[Atla]

I can blame people who lack free will just fine. I'm determined to have this attitude.

[BigMike]

If determinism tells us nothing prescriptive (a call for some action to be taken in accord with it) then what is wrong with morality as practiced now where people who commit crimes face some kind of penalty for it? Should someone who does a great wrong be "reformed" for it? So, if a terrorist blows up a pharmaceutical factory resulting in depriving people of badly needed, life saving, medicine, who then die, should the terrorist be "reformed" instead of imprisoned? Or what should the moral repercussions be for something like that? What counts as "reform" of someone who does something horrible out of hate or indifference?

Gary, you’re still trying to sneak free will back in through the side door.

Determinism means no one could have acted differently in the moment. That’s not a philosophical garnish—it’s the core. No freedom to choose means no moral justification for blame-based punishment. Period. You can’t logically hold someone “accountable” in the traditional sense if their actions were the inevitable result of prior causes.

That doesn’t mean we do nothing. It means we stop pretending that retribution is justice. We can protect society, prevent harm, and promote change—without clinging to the outdated fantasy that people “deserve” to suffer. That’s why reform makes more sense than revenge.

Look at Norway’s prison system. It treats inmates as human beings shaped by causes, not as monsters to be punished. The result? One of the lowest recidivism rates in the world. Not because they’re “soft,” but because they’re rational. They’ve accepted the reality that lasting safety comes from understanding and rehabilitation—not moral theatrics.

You asked what the “moral repercussions” should be. That question only makes sense if you assume people could have done otherwise. Under determinism, they couldn’t. So the question becomes: What outcomes do we want? Less harm? Less crime? Then stop worshipping punishment and start addressing causes.

If our actions are truly "determined" then maybe some of us can't stop "worshiping punishment"? Determinism implies that we only do what has been determined that we do. If we have free will, then we could stop what we're doing. If we are "determined" then what is determined will happen. If we have free will then we could stop "worshiping punishment". If I am "sneaking free will through the side door" then it seems you are also.

Gary, you’re confusing describing determinism with denying it.

Yes, if determinism is true, then even your continued belief in retributive punishment has a cause. So does my argument against it. That doesn’t make the argument invalid—it makes it explained. We're not stepping outside determinism to make a choice; we're expressing what our causes have led us to conclude.

You're trying to treat determinism like a self-defeating prophecy: “If determinism is real, then no one can argue for determinism unless they were destined to.” Well—yes. And? That’s exactly the point. Arguments, beliefs, moral systems—they all have causes. That’s not a contradiction; it’s the foundation.

The fact that some people are “determined” to cling to blame and punishment doesn’t justify it any more than being “determined” to commit theft justifies stealing. The goal is to understand what causes those beliefs and behaviors—and change the conditions that produce them. That’s how rational progress works.

So no, I’m not sneaking in free will. I’m explaining that even within determinism, we can and must shape better systems by understanding causes, not pretending people could have “just done better.” That delusion is what keeps injustice alive.

[accelafine]

Gary, you’re still trying to sneak free will back in through the side door.

Determinism means no one could have acted differently in the moment. That’s not a philosophical garnish—it’s the core. No freedom to choose means no moral justification for blame-based punishment. Period. You can’t logically hold someone “accountable” in the traditional sense if their actions were the inevitable result of prior causes.

That doesn’t mean we do nothing. It means we stop pretending that retribution is justice. We can protect society, prevent harm, and promote change—without clinging to the outdated fantasy that people “deserve” to suffer. That’s why reform makes more sense than revenge.

Look at Norway’s prison system. It treats inmates as human beings shaped by causes, not as monsters to be punished. The result? One of the lowest recidivism rates in the world. Not because they’re “soft,” but because they’re rational. They’ve accepted the reality that lasting safety comes from understanding and rehabilitation—not moral theatrics.

You asked what the “moral repercussions” should be. That question only makes sense if you assume people could have done otherwise. Under determinism, they couldn’t. So the question becomes: What outcomes do we want? Less harm? Less crime? Then stop worshipping punishment and start addressing causes.

If our actions are truly "determined" then maybe some of us can't stop "worshiping punishment"? Determinism implies that we only do what has been determined that we do. If we have free will, then we could stop what we're doing. If we are "determined" then what is determined will happen. If we have free will then we could stop "worshiping punishment". If I am "sneaking free will through the side door" then it seems you are also.

Gary, you’re confusing describing determinism with denying it.

Yes, if determinism is true, then even your continued belief in retributive punishment has a cause. So does my argument against it. That doesn’t make the argument invalid—it makes it explained. We're not stepping outside determinism to make a choice; we're expressing what our causes have led us to conclude.

You're trying to treat determinism like a self-defeating prophecy: “If determinism is real, then no one can argue for determinism unless they were destined to.” Well—yes. And? That’s exactly the point. Arguments, beliefs, moral systems—they all have causes. That’s not a contradiction; it’s the foundation.

The fact that some people are “determined” to cling to blame and punishment doesn’t justify it any more than being “determined” to commit theft justifies stealing. The goal is to understand what causes those beliefs and behaviors—and change the conditions that produce them. That’s how rational progress works.

So no, I’m not sneaking in free will. I’m explaining that even within determinism, we can and must shape better systems by understanding causes, not pretending people could have “just done better.” That delusion is what keeps injustice alive.

Do you have AI set to 'repetitive word salad'?

[accelafine]

If determinism tells us nothing prescriptive (a call for some action to be taken in accord with it) then what is wrong with morality as practiced now where people who commit crimes face some kind of penalty for it? Should someone who does a great wrong be "reformed" for it? So, if a terrorist blows up a pharmaceutical factory resulting in depriving people of badly needed, life saving, medicine, who then die, should the terrorist be "reformed" instead of imprisoned? Or what should the moral repercussions be for something like that? What counts as "reform" of someone who does something horrible out of hate or indifference?

Gary, you’re still trying to sneak free will back in through the side door.

Determinism means no one could have acted differently in the moment. That’s not a philosophical garnish—it’s the core. No freedom to choose means no moral justification for blame-based punishment. Period. You can’t logically hold someone “accountable” in the traditional sense if their actions were the inevitable result of prior causes.

That doesn’t mean we do nothing. It means we stop pretending that retribution is justice. We can protect society, prevent harm, and promote change—without clinging to the outdated fantasy that people “deserve” to suffer. That’s why reform makes more sense than revenge.

Look at Norway’s prison system. It treats inmates as human beings shaped by causes, not as monsters to be punished. The result? One of the lowest recidivism rates in the world. Not because they’re “soft,” but because they’re rational. They’ve accepted the reality that lasting safety comes from understanding and rehabilitation—not moral theatrics.

You asked what the “moral repercussions” should be. That question only makes sense if you assume people could have done otherwise. Under determinism, they couldn’t. So the question becomes: What outcomes do we want? Less harm? Less crime? Then stop worshipping punishment and start addressing causes.

If our actions are truly "determined" then maybe some of us can't stop "worshiping punishment"? Determinism implies that we only do what has been determined that we do. If we have free will, then we could stop what we're doing. If we are "determined" then what is determined will happen. If we have free will then we could stop "worshiping punishment". If I am "sneaking free will through the side door" then it seems you are also.

You just had to ask You could have looked at any of his posts on this topic over the past several months and seen the same thing.

[Gary Childress]

Gary, you’re still trying to sneak free will back in through the side door.

Determinism means no one could have acted differently in the moment. That’s not a philosophical garnish—it’s the core. No freedom to choose means no moral justification for blame-based punishment. Period. You can’t logically hold someone “accountable” in the traditional sense if their actions were the inevitable result of prior causes.

That doesn’t mean we do nothing. It means we stop pretending that retribution is justice. We can protect society, prevent harm, and promote change—without clinging to the outdated fantasy that people “deserve” to suffer. That’s why reform makes more sense than revenge.

Look at Norway’s prison system. It treats inmates as human beings shaped by causes, not as monsters to be punished. The result? One of the lowest recidivism rates in the world. Not because they’re “soft,” but because they’re rational. They’ve accepted the reality that lasting safety comes from understanding and rehabilitation—not moral theatrics.

You asked what the “moral repercussions” should be. That question only makes sense if you assume people could have done otherwise. Under determinism, they couldn’t. So the question becomes: What outcomes do we want? Less harm? Less crime? Then stop worshipping punishment and start addressing causes.

If our actions are truly "determined" then maybe some of us can't stop "worshiping punishment"? Determinism implies that we only do what has been determined that we do. If we have free will, then we could stop what we're doing. If we are "determined" then what is determined will happen. If we have free will then we could stop "worshiping punishment". If I am "sneaking free will through the side door" then it seems you are also.

Gary, you’re confusing describing determinism with denying it.

Yes, if determinism is true, then even your continued belief in retributive punishment has a cause. So does my argument against it. That doesn’t make the argument invalid—it makes it explained. We're not stepping outside determinism to make a choice; we're expressing what our causes have led us to conclude.

You're trying to treat determinism like a self-defeating prophecy: “If determinism is real, then no one can argue for determinism unless they were destined to.” Well—yes. And? That’s exactly the point. Arguments, beliefs, moral systems—they all have causes. That’s not a contradiction; it’s the foundation.

The fact that some people are “determined” to cling to blame and punishment doesn’t justify it any more than being “determined” to commit theft justifies stealing. The goal is to understand what causes those beliefs and behaviors—and change the conditions that produce them. That’s how rational progress works.

So no, I’m not sneaking in free will. I’m explaining that even within determinism, we can and must shape better systems by understanding causes, not pretending people could have “just done better.” That delusion is what keeps injustice alive.

Well the conditions that cause me to "worship punishment" are when I see mass violence being wrongly inflicted on innocent people. How can I "change" those conditions? What would you suggest as a solution to that "worshiping punishment"? Should I shut off news stations.

I mean it makes my blood boil--especially when I think it could happen to me or else I'm somehow complicit in its creation through my government's policies. How should I tackle the problem? I can't tell you why I get all bent out of shape over seeing innocent people harmed. But my first instinct in the case of my own government is to want to throw the SOB out of political office who is responsible.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Determinism means no one could have acted differently in the moment. That’s not a philosophical garnish—it’s the core. No freedom to choose means no moral justification for blame-based punishment. Period. You can’t logically hold someone “accountable” in the traditional sense if their actions were the inevitable result of prior causes.

Anyone, everyone can act differently in any given moment. That is more true than saying no one in a given moment could act differently.

But it is certainly true that men can be trained to control their impulses and to think about consequences in the moment.

That people who engage in crimes make the choice to do something illegal and punishable is a complicated issue. But it is plainly false to say “they had no choice”.

The question of how criminals should be effectively punished is separate from the pseudo-philosophical assertion that no one can choose, in a given moment, what they do. It stands to reason that it is more efficient and less expensive in the long run to attempt rehabilitation of a criminal rather than to be punish with vengeance tactics.

But the apparent fact that Norway, with one of the lowest crime rates in the world, even before they reformed the prison system, has low recidivism rates does not prove Mike’s assertion that men cannot choose their behaviors.

[Gary Childress]

Determinism means no one could have acted differently in the moment. That’s not a philosophical garnish—it’s the core. No freedom to choose means no moral justification for blame-based punishment. Period. You can’t logically hold someone “accountable” in the traditional sense if their actions were the inevitable result of prior causes.

Anyone, everyone can act differently in any given moment. That is more true than saying no one in a given moment could act differently.

But it is certainly true that men can be trained to control their impulses and to think about consequences in the moment.

That people who engage in crimes make the choice to do something illegal and punishable is a complicated issue. But it is plainly false to say “they had no choice”.

The question of how criminals should be effectively punished is separate from the pseudo-philosophical assertion that no one can choose, in a given moment, what they do. It stands to reason that it is more efficient and less expensive in the long run to attempt rehabilitation of a criminal rather than to be punish with vengeance tactics.

But the apparent fact that Norway, with one of the lowest crime rates in the world, even before they reformed the prison system, has low recidivism rates does not prove Mike’s assertion that men cannot choose their behaviors.

Please correct your quote. I didn't write what you have me quoted.

[Alexis Jacobi]

It was determined that you’d be quoted falsely. I am beginning to think you really DID write that even though I know you didn’t.

Note to Forum

In the post 2 up I misquoted Gary. It was BigMike who wrote what is quoted.

[Gary Childress]

It was determined that you’d be quoted falsely. I am beginning to think you really DID write that even though I know you didn’t.

Note to Forum

In the post 2 up I misquoted Gary. It was BigMike who wrote what is quoted.

What about Mike's quote makes you think I would write it?

[BigMike]

If our actions are truly "determined" then maybe some of us can't stop "worshiping punishment"? Determinism implies that we only do what has been determined that we do. If we have free will, then we could stop what we're doing. If we are "determined" then what is determined will happen. If we have free will then we could stop "worshiping punishment". If I am "sneaking free will through the side door" then it seems you are also.

Gary, you’re confusing describing determinism with denying it.

Yes, if determinism is true, then even your continued belief in retributive punishment has a cause. So does my argument against it. That doesn’t make the argument invalid—it makes it explained. We're not stepping outside determinism to make a choice; we're expressing what our causes have led us to conclude.

You're trying to treat determinism like a self-defeating prophecy: “If determinism is real, then no one can argue for determinism unless they were destined to.” Well—yes. And? That’s exactly the point. Arguments, beliefs, moral systems—they all have causes. That’s not a contradiction; it’s the foundation.

The fact that some people are “determined” to cling to blame and punishment doesn’t justify it any more than being “determined” to commit theft justifies stealing. The goal is to understand what causes those beliefs and behaviors—and change the conditions that produce them. That’s how rational progress works.

So no, I’m not sneaking in free will. I’m explaining that even within determinism, we can and must shape better systems by understanding causes, not pretending people could have “just done better.” That delusion is what keeps injustice alive.

Well the conditions that cause me to "worship punishment" are when I see mass violence being wrongly inflicted on innocent people. How can I "change" those conditions? What would you suggest as a solution to that "worshiping punishment"? Should I shut off news stations.

I mean it makes my blood boil--especially when I think it could happen to me or else I'm somehow complicit in its creation through my government's policies. How should I tackle the problem? I can't tell you why I get all bent out of shape over seeing innocent people harmed. But my first instinct in the case of my own government is to want to throw the SOB out of political office who is responsible.

Gary, I don’t doubt for a second that your anger is real. Most people feel a surge of fury when they see innocent lives destroyed. That visceral response—to want to punish, to lash out, to demand consequences—is deeply human. It’s not something you chose; it’s something that was built into you by experience, by culture, by countless moments of emotional reinforcement. That’s determinism at work.

But here’s the uncomfortable truth: just because something feels right doesn’t make it right. The impulse to punish feels righteous because you’ve been conditioned to see it that way. We all have. Western justice systems don’t just punish—they wrap punishment in moral theater. “They deserved it.” “Justice was served.” But under determinism, that entire framework falls apart. If people are products of causes they didn’t choose—genetics, trauma, propaganda, desperation—then punishment, as vengeance, becomes cruelty pretending to be virtue.

You ask: “How do I change that instinct?” The first step is this—recognize it as an instinct, not a truth. Don’t kill the feeling. Question its source. Trace it. Who taught you that pain should be answered with more pain? Who taught you that justice means making someone suffer? And who benefits when you believe that?

Your outrage doesn’t have to vanish. In fact, it’s valuable. But aim it at the conditions that create harm—not just the people caught acting it out. When you see someone commit violence, ask: what made that person? What system, what failure, what chain of causes led to that outcome?

If you really want fewer victims—and it sounds like you do—then you need to stop pouring gasoline on the fire by glorifying retribution. Norway didn’t get safer by getting angrier. It got safer by getting smarter. They treat violence as a system failure—not a moral test. And their results speak louder than any moral outrage ever will.

So no, you’re not weak or wrong for feeling what you feel. You’re human. But if you want to go beyond reflex—and actually help build something better—start by questioning what shaped that reflex in the first place. That’s not letting people off the hook. That’s refusing to be manipulated by instincts you didn’t choose.

And that, ironically, is the closest thing we have to real freedom.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Gary, it was a mistake and I was attempting to quote Mike.

[BigMike]

Determinism means no one could have acted differently in the moment. That’s not a philosophical garnish—it’s the core. No freedom to choose means no moral justification for blame-based punishment. Period. You can’t logically hold someone “accountable” in the traditional sense if their actions were the inevitable result of prior causes.

Anyone, everyone can act differently in any given moment. That is more true than saying no one in a given moment could act differently.

But it is certainly true that men can be trained to control their impulses and to think about consequences in the moment.

That people who engage in crimes make the choice to do something illegal and punishable is a complicated issue. But it is plainly false to say “they had no choice”.

The question of how criminals should be effectively punished is separate from the pseudo-philosophical assertion that no one can choose, in a given moment, what they do. It stands to reason that it is more efficient and less expensive in the long run to attempt rehabilitation of a criminal rather than to be punish with vengeance tactics.

But the apparent fact that Norway, with one of the lowest crime rates in the world, even before they reformed the prison system, has low recidivism rates does not prove Mike’s assertion that men cannot choose their behaviors.

Alexis, if you think the Norwegian Vikings were peace-loving models of impulse control, ask the Brits. Or the French. Or anyone who lived through Lindisfarne, Paris, or the thousand other raids. The Norwegians weren’t exactly known for rehabilitation in the 9th century. They were known for burning monasteries and enslaving entire villages. So if you’re under the impression that Norway's low recidivism today is just the echo of some ancient cultural restraint, you’ve skipped about 1,000 years of history and reform.

And if you think the Lindisfarne raid is fantasy, I’d say your skepticism is misfiring. But forget Vikings for a second. Let’s talk Portugal.

They decriminalized drugs over two decades ago. Treated addiction as a medical issue, not a moral failing. Their rates of drug-related deaths, HIV infection, and incarceration all dropped dramatically. Not because people suddenly “chose better,” but because the conditions that drive behavior were intelligently reshaped.

That’s determinism in action: you change the outcomes by changing the inputs. You don’t scream at the addict to "make better choices." You change the environment that produces addiction. Just like Norway changed the environment that fuels recidivism.

Your insistence that “anyone can act differently in a given moment” is not an argument—it’s a faith statement. It feels true because you’re used to thinking that way. But feelings aren’t logic, and intuition isn’t evidence. The deterministic view doesn’t deny that people change—it explains how and why they change, without resorting to metaphysical free will.

So if you want to argue against determinism, you’ll need more than vague appeals to what “stands to reason.” You’ll need to explain how anything—any thought, decision, or action—escapes cause and effect. Until then, all you’re doing is declaring your belief louder, not defending it better.

[Gary Childress]

Gary, you’re confusing describing determinism with denying it.

Yes, if determinism is true, then even your continued belief in retributive punishment has a cause. So does my argument against it. That doesn’t make the argument invalid—it makes it explained. We're not stepping outside determinism to make a choice; we're expressing what our causes have led us to conclude.

You're trying to treat determinism like a self-defeating prophecy: “If determinism is real, then no one can argue for determinism unless they were destined to.” Well—yes. And? That’s exactly the point. Arguments, beliefs, moral systems—they all have causes. That’s not a contradiction; it’s the foundation.

The fact that some people are “determined” to cling to blame and punishment doesn’t justify it any more than being “determined” to commit theft justifies stealing. The goal is to understand what causes those beliefs and behaviors—and change the conditions that produce them. That’s how rational progress works.

So no, I’m not sneaking in free will. I’m explaining that even within determinism, we can and must shape better systems by understanding causes, not pretending people could have “just done better.” That delusion is what keeps injustice alive.

Well the conditions that cause me to "worship punishment" are when I see mass violence being wrongly inflicted on innocent people. How can I "change" those conditions? What would you suggest as a solution to that "worshiping punishment"? Should I shut off news stations.

I mean it makes my blood boil--especially when I think it could happen to me or else I'm somehow complicit in its creation through my government's policies. How should I tackle the problem? I can't tell you why I get all bent out of shape over seeing innocent people harmed. But my first instinct in the case of my own government is to want to throw the SOB out of political office who is responsible.

Gary, I don’t doubt for a second that your anger is real. Most people feel a surge of fury when they see innocent lives destroyed. That visceral response—to want to punish, to lash out, to demand consequences—is deeply human. It’s not something you chose; it’s something that was built into you by experience, by culture, by countless moments of emotional reinforcement. That’s determinism at work.

But here’s the uncomfortable truth: just because something feels right doesn’t make it right. The impulse to punish feels righteous because you’ve been conditioned to see it that way. We all have. Western justice systems don’t just punish—they wrap punishment in moral theater. “They deserved it.” “Justice was served.” But under determinism, that entire framework falls apart. If people are products of causes they didn’t choose—genetics, trauma, propaganda, desperation—then punishment, as vengeance, becomes cruelty pretending to be virtue.

You ask: “How do I change that instinct?” The first step is this—recognize it as an instinct, not a truth. Don’t kill the feeling. Question its source. Trace it. Who taught you that pain should be answered with more pain? Who taught you that justice means making someone suffer? And who benefits when you believe that?

Your outrage doesn’t have to vanish. In fact, it’s valuable. But aim it at the conditions that create harm—not just the people caught acting it out. When you see someone commit violence, ask: what made that person? What system, what failure, what chain of causes led to that outcome?

If you really want fewer victims—and it sounds like you do—then you need to stop pouring gasoline on the fire by glorifying retribution. Norway didn’t get safer by getting angrier. It got safer by getting smarter. They treat violence as a system failure—not a moral test. And their results speak louder than any moral outrage ever will.

So no, you’re not weak or wrong for feeling what you feel. You’re human. But if you want to go beyond reflex—and actually help build something better—start by questioning what shaped that reflex in the first place. That’s not letting people off the hook. That’s refusing to be manipulated by instincts you didn’t choose.

And that, ironically, is the closest thing we have to real freedom.

So, by the same token, no one "deserves" Nobel Prizes (or any achievement for that matter). Perhaps we could start the ball of deterministic acceptance rolling by doing away with trophies and prizes, doing away with competitions that reward achievement or merit. Instead of giving a CEO millions of dollars to sit around and make decisions, maybe we ought to just pay them a basic wage like everyone else? What do you think? Essentially, we're all not unlike molecules bumping around into each other in accidental ways that produce different results for each of us. We have no more agency than to be in the right place at the right time for something, either good or bad, to happen. If everything is determined, then what difference do incentives make any more than disincentives do?

[BigMike]

Well the conditions that cause me to "worship punishment" are when I see mass violence being wrongly inflicted on innocent people. How can I "change" those conditions? What would you suggest as a solution to that "worshiping punishment"? Should I shut off news stations.

I mean it makes my blood boil--especially when I think it could happen to me or else I'm somehow complicit in its creation through my government's policies. How should I tackle the problem? I can't tell you why I get all bent out of shape over seeing innocent people harmed. But my first instinct in the case of my own government is to want to throw the SOB out of political office who is responsible.

Gary, I don’t doubt for a second that your anger is real. Most people feel a surge of fury when they see innocent lives destroyed. That visceral response—to want to punish, to lash out, to demand consequences—is deeply human. It’s not something you chose; it’s something that was built into you by experience, by culture, by countless moments of emotional reinforcement. That’s determinism at work.

But here’s the uncomfortable truth: just because something feels right doesn’t make it right. The impulse to punish feels righteous because you’ve been conditioned to see it that way. We all have. Western justice systems don’t just punish—they wrap punishment in moral theater. “They deserved it.” “Justice was served.” But under determinism, that entire framework falls apart. If people are products of causes they didn’t choose—genetics, trauma, propaganda, desperation—then punishment, as vengeance, becomes cruelty pretending to be virtue.

You ask: “How do I change that instinct?” The first step is this—recognize it as an instinct, not a truth. Don’t kill the feeling. Question its source. Trace it. Who taught you that pain should be answered with more pain? Who taught you that justice means making someone suffer? And who benefits when you believe that?

Your outrage doesn’t have to vanish. In fact, it’s valuable. But aim it at the conditions that create harm—not just the people caught acting it out. When you see someone commit violence, ask: what made that person? What system, what failure, what chain of causes led to that outcome?

If you really want fewer victims—and it sounds like you do—then you need to stop pouring gasoline on the fire by glorifying retribution. Norway didn’t get safer by getting angrier. It got safer by getting smarter. They treat violence as a system failure—not a moral test. And their results speak louder than any moral outrage ever will.

So no, you’re not weak or wrong for feeling what you feel. You’re human. But if you want to go beyond reflex—and actually help build something better—start by questioning what shaped that reflex in the first place. That’s not letting people off the hook. That’s refusing to be manipulated by instincts you didn’t choose.

And that, ironically, is the closest thing we have to real freedom.

So, by the same token, no one "deserves" Nobel Prizes (or any achievement for that matter). Perhaps we could start the ball of deterministic acceptance rolling by doing away with trophies and prizes, doing away with competitions that reward achievement or merit. Instead of giving a CEO millions of dollars to sit around and make decisions, maybe we ought to just pay them a basic wage like everyone else? What do you think? Essentially, we're all not unlike molecules bumping around into each other in accidental ways that produce different results for each of us. We have no more agency than to be in the right place at the right time for something, either good or bad, to happen. If everything is determined, then what difference do incentives make any more than disincentives do?

Gary, yes—exactly. That’s the point. No one "deserves" a Nobel Prize any more than they “deserve” a prison cell. Not if by "deserve" you mean they freely chose their intelligence, drive, health, upbringing, education, or opportunities. They didn’t. No one did. That's what determinism makes clear: outcomes—good or bad—emerge from causes, not from some magical internal chooser floating above causality.

So when you say, “maybe we ought to just pay CEOs a basic wage like everyone else”—I don’t hear sarcasm. I hear you touching the core of what a just, deterministic society would look like: one that stops confusing luck for virtue and misfortune for guilt. One that stops rewarding people for “winning” a race they didn’t choose to enter, with conditions they didn’t control.

And no, that doesn’t mean incentives have no effect. Of course they do. Incentives, like every other environmental input, influence behavior. But we shouldn’t kid ourselves into thinking those who respond well to incentives are “better people.” They’re just the products of causes that made them responsive to that input. That insight doesn’t make incentives useless—it just removes the self-congratulatory mythology around them.

What you’re resisting is actually the next logical step in your own thinking. If we accept that no one “deserves” to be tortured, then we also have to accept that no one “deserves” to be idolized. It’s the same mistake in both directions: assigning moral weight to outcomes that were causally inevitable.

So yes, let’s start rethinking incentives and disincentives. Let’s stop propping up myths of merit and blame. And let’s start designing systems that are based not on fantasy—but on facts. Because that’s the only way to stop punishing the unlucky and worshiping the fortunate.

[Gary Childress]

Gary, I don’t doubt for a second that your anger is real. Most people feel a surge of fury when they see innocent lives destroyed. That visceral response—to want to punish, to lash out, to demand consequences—is deeply human. It’s not something you chose; it’s something that was built into you by experience, by culture, by countless moments of emotional reinforcement. That’s determinism at work.

But here’s the uncomfortable truth: just because something feels right doesn’t make it right. The impulse to punish feels righteous because you’ve been conditioned to see it that way. We all have. Western justice systems don’t just punish—they wrap punishment in moral theater. “They deserved it.” “Justice was served.” But under determinism, that entire framework falls apart. If people are products of causes they didn’t choose—genetics, trauma, propaganda, desperation—then punishment, as vengeance, becomes cruelty pretending to be virtue.

You ask: “How do I change that instinct?” The first step is this—recognize it as an instinct, not a truth. Don’t kill the feeling. Question its source. Trace it. Who taught you that pain should be answered with more pain? Who taught you that justice means making someone suffer? And who benefits when you believe that?

Your outrage doesn’t have to vanish. In fact, it’s valuable. But aim it at the conditions that create harm—not just the people caught acting it out. When you see someone commit violence, ask: what made that person? What system, what failure, what chain of causes led to that outcome?

If you really want fewer victims—and it sounds like you do—then you need to stop pouring gasoline on the fire by glorifying retribution. Norway didn’t get safer by getting angrier. It got safer by getting smarter. They treat violence as a system failure—not a moral test. And their results speak louder than any moral outrage ever will.

So no, you’re not weak or wrong for feeling what you feel. You’re human. But if you want to go beyond reflex—and actually help build something better—start by questioning what shaped that reflex in the first place. That’s not letting people off the hook. That’s refusing to be manipulated by instincts you didn’t choose.

And that, ironically, is the closest thing we have to real freedom.

So, by the same token, no one "deserves" Nobel Prizes (or any achievement for that matter). Perhaps we could start the ball of deterministic acceptance rolling by doing away with trophies and prizes, doing away with competitions that reward achievement or merit. Instead of giving a CEO millions of dollars to sit around and make decisions, maybe we ought to just pay them a basic wage like everyone else? What do you think? Essentially, we're all not unlike molecules bumping around into each other in accidental ways that produce different results for each of us. We have no more agency than to be in the right place at the right time for something, either good or bad, to happen. If everything is determined, then what difference do incentives make any more than disincentives do?

Gary, yes—exactly. That’s the point. No one "deserves" a Nobel Prize any more than they “deserve” a prison cell. Not if by "deserve" you mean they freely chose their intelligence, drive, health, upbringing, education, or opportunities. They didn’t. No one did. That's what determinism makes clear: outcomes—good or bad—emerge from causes, not from some magical internal chooser floating above causality.

So when you say, “maybe we ought to just pay CEOs a basic wage like everyone else”—I don’t hear sarcasm. I hear you touching the core of what a just, deterministic society would look like: one that stops confusing luck for virtue and misfortune for guilt. One that stops rewarding people for “winning” a race they didn’t choose to enter, with conditions they didn’t control.

And no, that doesn’t mean incentives have no effect. Of course they do. Incentives, like every other environmental input, influence behavior. But we shouldn’t kid ourselves into thinking those who respond well to incentives are “better people.” They’re just the products of causes that made them responsive to that input. That insight doesn’t make incentives useless—it just removes the self-congratulatory mythology around them.

What you’re resisting is actually the next logical step in your own thinking. If we accept that no one “deserves” to be tortured, then we also have to accept that no one “deserves” to be idolized. It’s the same mistake in both directions: assigning moral weight to outcomes that were causally inevitable.

So yes, let’s start rethinking incentives and disincentives. Let’s stop propping up myths of merit and blame. And let’s start designing systems that are based not on fantasy—but on facts. Because that’s the only way to stop punishing the unlucky and worshiping the fortunate.

OK. Wait, you said incentives have an effect. But disincentives don't? Do incentives make people happy and want to pursue the tasks that would reward them? But disincentives don't cause people to think twice about murdering someone who really, really pissed them off by cutting them off in traffic or something (for example)? A disincentive doesn't cause people to check their anger?