Philosophy Now Forum

Alexiev wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 5:13 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 1:08 pm
Dubious, blame is meaningless because free will is an illusion. People don’t choose to be “shit humans” any more than they choose their genetics, upbringing, or the social conditions that shape them.

The world is the way it is because of cause and effect, not because of conscious moral failings by autonomous agents. If people act destructively, it’s because of deterministic processes—ignorance, trauma, poor environments, broken systems—not because they “could have chosen better.”

Instead of blaming, we should focus on understanding the actual causes of suffering and dysfunction and working to change them. We’re the only ones who can make things better—not because we’re divinely guided, but because we actually study what leads to better outcomes and act accordingly.

Mike doubles down on his irrational notions about the implications of determinism in this post. Given the deterministic universe Mike posits, why does he assume that eliminating blame "leads to better outcomes"? Isn't it likely that blame (and the possibility of punishment) are among the deterministic factors that promote adherence to social norms and prevent murder, rape and assault? Why would Mike assume that the deterministic "causes" of behavior do not include social pressure, legal liability, and a desire for friendship and acceptance?

Once again, Mike makes claims for the acceptance of a deterministic worldview that collapse under scrutiny. It does not follow from the acceptance of determinism that we must avoid blaming people for their wickedness. Why would it?

Also, the world is not a "shithole". Look around and marvel at its beauty. Fall in love. Have children. Anyone who hates the world has only himself to blame (and can blame himself whether his hatred is "determined" or not -- the blame is also determined, and might be a factor in altering his point of view).

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 5:53 pm [
Alexiev, blame is just repackaged retribution, a relic of free will thinking. Of course, social pressure, legal consequences, and incentives shape behavior—they’re causal factors, not moral judgments. The point isn’t to eliminate accountability but to replace outdated, punitive thinking with a systems-based approach that actually reduces harm.

As for the world—yes, it has beauty, but that doesn’t erase suffering. Recognizing problems isn’t nihilism; it’s the first step toward fixing them.

Alexiev wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 7:19 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 5:53 pm [
Alexiev, blame is just repackaged retribution, a relic of free will thinking. Of course, social pressure, legal consequences, and incentives shape behavior—they’re causal factors, not moral judgments. The point isn’t to eliminate accountability but to replace outdated, punitive thinking with a systems-based approach that actually reduces harm.

As for the world—yes, it has beauty, but that doesn’t erase suffering. Recognizing problems isn’t nihilism; it’s the first step toward fixing them.

As the prophet of scientific, evidence-based theorizing, Mike, you seem to have abandoned your own principles. Do you have any evidence that eliminating moral blame or praise will improve human well-being? Or are you just making it up? Everyone agrees that addressing some of the causes of dysfunctional behaviors is a good thing; that does not suggest that we need to eliminate morality or moral sanctions.

"Man was born to suffer, as the sparks fly upward." That may be unfortunate, but without suffering there could be no courage or nobility. Without sadness, joy would be less joyful. The problem is not only the world, but how we look at it.

Alexiev wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 7:19 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 5:53 pm [
Alexiev, blame is just repackaged retribution, a relic of free will thinking. Of course, social pressure, legal consequences, and incentives shape behavior—they’re causal factors, not moral judgments. The point isn’t to eliminate accountability but to replace outdated, punitive thinking with a systems-based approach that actually reduces harm.

As for the world—yes, it has beauty, but that doesn’t erase suffering. Recognizing problems isn’t nihilism; it’s the first step toward fixing them.

As the prophet of scientific, evidence-based theorizing, Mike, you seem to have abandoned your own principles. Do you have any evidence that eliminating moral blame or praise will improve human well-being? Or are you just making it up? Everyone agrees that addressing some of the causes of dysfunctional behaviors is a good thing; that does not suggest that we need to eliminate morality or moral sanctions.

"Man was born to suffer, as the sparks fly upward." That may be unfortunate, but without suffering there could be no courage or nobility. Without sadness, joy would be less joyful. The problem is not only the world, but how we look at it.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 7:33 pm
[quote=Alexiev post_id=753917 time=1738520396
Sadness and suffering are just sadness and suffering. Without them, the only thing we'd lose are sadness and suffering. And unlike Nietzsche's quip, they don't make us stronger, they usually just make us weirder.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 9:16 am Skepdick, if you truly think you’ve demonstrated a flaw in the conservation laws and determinism itself, then don’t waste your time on internet forums—publish your findings. A legitimate, empirically verified contradiction in conservation laws would be the biggest discovery in modern physics.

Win yourself a Nobel Prize, instant fame, and a million dollars in prize money—because that’s exactly what would happen if your claim actually held up under scientific scrutiny.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 9:16 am But let’s be real: Norton’s Dome is just a mathematical curiosity within Newtonian mechanics, not a real-world violation of conservation laws.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 9:16 am It describes an idealized, infinitely fine-tuned system that doesn’t exist in nature.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 9:16 am quantum mechanics, friction, and external influences would ensure a definite outcome—which is exactly why no actual, empirical experiment has ever demonstrated a failure of determinism.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 9:16 am So if you think this is your ticket to revolutionizing physics, by all means, take it to the journals. But until then, don’t pretend that a thought experiment in Newtonian mechanics overturns the entire body of empirical physics.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 7:35 pm

Alexiev, the evidence is already there—rehabilitative justice models, restorative practices, and psychological research all show that understanding causes leads to better outcomes than punitive retribution. Norway’s prison system, for example, focuses on rehabilitation over punishment and has one of the lowest recidivism rates in the world. Compare that to the U.S., where punitive justice fuels cycles of crime.

I’m not "eliminating morality"—I’m saying morality should be causal and pragmatic, not retributive. The goal isn’t to erase accountability but to make it effective by treating causes, not symptoms.

As for suffering, glorifying it as necessary for nobility is just romantic fatalism. Yes, perspective matters, but so do real conditions. Pretending suffering gives life meaning doesn’t help anyone actually suffering. Fixing the world where we can is better than philosophizing about why we shouldn’t.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 2:49 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 12:48 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 2:29 am I don't know. I think I might be an anti-theist. It seems emotionally healthier than all the fakery of kristianity. Fuck the god who created this shit hole. I've had enough.

First and foremost, it wasn't god who created this shit hole. If existence depended on god, nothing would exist since god never existed.

Consequently, what created this shit hole are the shit humans who have done their best to create a shit hole on a planet that never started off that way...a process, which instead of abating, seems to be augmenting.

We're in trouble because of too many brain-dead shit humans on the planet.

Blame where blame is due! Why blame something which never existed!

I don't think people make the world a shithole. It was a shithole from day 1 when our ancestors were doing their best not to be eaten by something else. I don't think any human is to blame for the world we're all thrown into, God or no God.

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 8:43 pm Bummer isn't it, hating life but still yearning to live!

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 1:08 pmInstead of blaming, we should focus on understanding the actual causes of suffering and dysfunction and working to change them. We’re the only ones who can make things better—not because we’re divinely guided, but because we actually study what leads to better outcomes and act accordingly.

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 10:01 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 1:08 pmInstead of blaming, we should focus on understanding the actual causes of suffering and dysfunction and working to change them. We’re the only ones who can make things better—not because we’re divinely guided, but because we actually study what leads to better outcomes and act accordingly.

How would it change or change anything if under your system everything is so absolutely cause & effect wise mechanistically determined?

Yes, free will is an illusion as far as its underpinnings are concerned defined by rigid laws which may not have rigid outcomes, being the same for all living. No debate is necessary regarding that. In spite of that being irrefutable, choices must still be made. You say yes, I say no; you say wait, I say go! In spite of life and the universe all created by the same laws, what causes the difference between our differences, not only inter but intra within ourselves?

There are approximately eighty billion neurons in the human brain forming a web of 1000 trillion connections. What is it all for if not to cope with complexities indigenous only to humans in which a consensus is seldom reached? Consciousness demands that within its arena, which are multiplex, choices be made insofar as they exist or aware of its existence. In that respect, Will is tantamount to destiny.

In effect, without including the word free, is an act of will even possible within your system? It would seem so since you say we should focus on understanding the actual causes of suffering and dysfunction and working to change them. If so, how is that different from an operational free will existing within one's ability to decide?

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 10:49 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 10:01 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 1:08 pmInstead of blaming, we should focus on understanding the actual causes of suffering and dysfunction and working to change them. We’re the only ones who can make things better—not because we’re divinely guided, but because we actually study what leads to better outcomes and act accordingly.

How would it change or change anything if under your system everything is so absolutely cause & effect wise mechanistically determined?

Yes, free will is an illusion as far as its underpinnings are concerned defined by rigid laws which may not have rigid outcomes, being the same for all living. No debate is necessary regarding that. In spite of that being irrefutable, choices must still be made. You say yes, I say no; you say wait, I say go! In spite of life and the universe all created by the same laws, what causes the difference between our differences, not only inter but intra within ourselves?

There are approximately eighty billion neurons in the human brain forming a web of 1000 trillion connections. What is it all for if not to cope with complexities indigenous only to humans in which a consensus is seldom reached? Consciousness demands that within its arena, which are multiplex, choices be made insofar as they exist or aware of its existence. In that respect, Will is tantamount to destiny.

In effect, without including the word free, is an act of will even possible within your system? It would seem so since you say we should focus on understanding the actual causes of suffering and dysfunction and working to change them. If so, how is that different from an operational free will existing within one's ability to decide?

Dubious, people make "decisions," but those decisions are determined by prior causes—biological, environmental, and experiential. The difference between how you and I respond to a situation isn’t due to some mystical “free will” but to historical physical changes in our brains, accumulated over time through learning, memory formation, and past experiences.

Long-term memory itself is a physical alteration of the brain—the strengthening or weakening of synapses, the formation of new neural pathways. These changes, caused by past experiences, influence how we respond today. If someone has learned relevant information in the past, that stored knowledge physically shapes how they process a situation and what action they take.

So, when you ask how this is different from “operational free will,” the answer is simple: agency exists, but it is fully determined. Our ability to process information, evaluate options, and take action isn’t some uncaused, spontaneous force—it’s the result of a causal chain of experiences and neural development.

Saying “we should focus on understanding causes” isn’t an appeal to free will—it’s an acknowledgment that by understanding what shapes behavior, we can alter future outcomes. We don’t “choose” to act outside causality—we are causality in action, responding to what shaped us and, in turn, shaping what comes next.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 2:28 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 10:49 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 10:01 pm
How would it change or change anything if under your system everything is so absolutely cause & effect wise mechanistically determined?

Yes, free will is an illusion as far as its underpinnings are concerned defined by rigid laws which may not have rigid outcomes, being the same for all living. No debate is necessary regarding that. In spite of that being irrefutable, choices must still be made. You say yes, I say no; you say wait, I say go! In spite of life and the universe all created by the same laws, what causes the difference between our differences, not only inter but intra within ourselves?

There are approximately eighty billion neurons in the human brain forming a web of 1000 trillion connections. What is it all for if not to cope with complexities indigenous only to humans in which a consensus is seldom reached? Consciousness demands that within its arena, which are multiplex, choices be made insofar as they exist or aware of its existence. In that respect, Will is tantamount to destiny.

In effect, without including the word free, is an act of will even possible within your system? It would seem so since you say we should focus on understanding the actual causes of suffering and dysfunction and working to change them. If so, how is that different from an operational free will existing within one's ability to decide?

Dubious, people make "decisions," but those decisions are determined by prior causes—biological, environmental, and experiential. The difference between how you and I respond to a situation isn’t due to some mystical “free will” but to historical physical changes in our brains, accumulated over time through learning, memory formation, and past experiences.

Long-term memory itself is a physical alteration of the brain—the strengthening or weakening of synapses, the formation of new neural pathways. These changes, caused by past experiences, influence how we respond today. If someone has learned relevant information in the past, that stored knowledge physically shapes how they process a situation and what action they take.

So, when you ask how this is different from “operational free will,” the answer is simple: agency exists, but it is fully determined. Our ability to process information, evaluate options, and take action isn’t some uncaused, spontaneous force—it’s the result of a causal chain of experiences and neural development.

Saying “we should focus on understanding causes” isn’t an appeal to free will—it’s an acknowledgment that by understanding what shapes behavior, we can alter future outcomes. We don’t “choose” to act outside causality—we are causality in action, responding to what shaped us and, in turn, shaping what comes next.

So here's the rub with "reforming criminals" and "humane justice".

Do you try to reform an adult (for example) who brutally stabs a bunch of elementary school children? I mean, if I'm the parents of those children, I'm thinking, "no way is that guy going to receive room and board and a future job". Otherwise, you have law abiding citizens working their assess off to make ends meet and some psychopath gets more or less free room and board while they "reform" him into a normal working citizen.

Is that justice? Can we really say that punitive justice is "evil" or serves no good end? I mean, if someone does the unforgivable, then maybe they ought to be subjected to hell on Earth because there are indeed ordinary people out there who live through hell on Earth just to make an honest living. How do you tell those people that that's just too bad? Especially if we're sure there's no God who will administer final justice in the end.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 7:35 pm

Alexiev wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 7:19 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 5:53 pm [
Alexiev, blame is just repackaged retribution, a relic of free will thinking. Of course, social pressure, legal consequences, and incentives shape behavior—they’re causal factors, not moral judgments. The point isn’t to eliminate accountability but to replace outdated, punitive thinking with a systems-based approach that actually reduces harm.

As for the world—yes, it has beauty, but that doesn’t erase suffering. Recognizing problems isn’t nihilism; it’s the first step toward fixing them.

As the prophet of scientific, evidence-based theorizing, Mike, you seem to have abandoned your own principles. Do you have any evidence that eliminating moral blame or praise will improve human well-being? Or are you just making it up? Everyone agrees that addressing some of the causes of dysfunctional behaviors is a good thing; that does not suggest that we need to eliminate morality or moral sanctions.

"Man was born to suffer, as the sparks fly upward." That may be unfortunate, but without suffering there could be no courage or nobility. Without sadness, joy would be less joyful. The problem is not only the world, but how we look at it.

Alexiev, the evidence is already there—rehabilitative justice models, restorative practices, and psychological research all show that understanding causes leads to better outcomes than punitive retribution. Norway’s prison system, for example, focuses on rehabilitation over punishment and has one of the lowest recidivism rates in the world. Compare that to the U.S., where punitive justice fuels cycles of crime.

I’m not "eliminating morality"—I’m saying morality should be causal and pragmatic, not retributive. The goal isn’t to erase accountability but to make it effective by treating causes, not symptoms.

As for suffering, glorifying it as necessary for nobility is just romantic fatalism. Yes, perspective matters, but so do real conditions. Pretending suffering gives life meaning doesn’t help anyone actually suffering. Fixing the world where we can is better than philosophizing about why we shouldn’t.

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 11:38 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 7:35 pm

Alexiev wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 7:19 pm

As the prophet of scientific, evidence-based theorizing, Mike, you seem to have abandoned your own principles. Do you have any evidence that eliminating moral blame or praise will improve human well-being? Or are you just making it up? Everyone agrees that addressing some of the causes of dysfunctional behaviors is a good thing; that does not suggest that we need to eliminate morality or moral sanctions.

"Man was born to suffer, as the sparks fly upward." That may be unfortunate, but without suffering there could be no courage or nobility. Without sadness, joy would be less joyful. The problem is not only the world, but how we look at it.

Alexiev, the evidence is already there—rehabilitative justice models, restorative practices, and psychological research all show that understanding causes leads to better outcomes than punitive retribution. Norway’s prison system, for example, focuses on rehabilitation over punishment and has one of the lowest recidivism rates in the world. Compare that to the U.S., where punitive justice fuels cycles of crime.

I’m not "eliminating morality"—I’m saying morality should be causal and pragmatic, not retributive. The goal isn’t to erase accountability but to make it effective by treating causes, not symptoms.

As for suffering, glorifying it as necessary for nobility is just romantic fatalism. Yes, perspective matters, but so do real conditions. Pretending suffering gives life meaning doesn’t help anyone actually suffering. Fixing the world where we can is better than philosophizing about why we shouldn’t.

I agree with BigMike that criminal justice is more effective when based upon rehabilitation of criminals. Finding the causes of crimes and thereby eliminating crime as far as possible is also a more effective strategy than retribution. Both of the above strategies are based upon practical reasoning , and not wasting time and effort on short term and ineffectual retribution.

However to try to stop recidivism ,it should be made known to criminals ,their associates, and the general public that, not only the judge, but also the society condemns criminal activities. In practice it's hard to separate general disapproval from retributive punishment, and will only affect criminals who are not already members of the criminal underclass. These people well know that they are a class apart from the mainstream, and this will of course be taken into account during rehabilitation. The judiciary have a duty to represent the law abiding mainstream and not appear to be weak or sentimental.

All my claims are based upon causes and effects .Deterrence should not be conflated with the simplistic aim of retribution which as Mike says is ineffectual.
Retribution is ineffectual largely because most serious crime is committed by members of criminal subcultures with their own loyalty structures. At this juncture I regret that I lack a diagram of intersecting circles

It's true as Mike says that blame + retribution don't work and are based ,not upon reason , but upon medieval religious dogma.