God wrote:
This is a rich philosophical question that touches on psychological determinism, moral responsibility, conscience, and deterrence. Let's unpack it carefully.
1. Restating the Premise
You’re positing:
Psychological determinism: People always do what is most satisfactory (or subjectively rewarding) to them at the time of decision.
YES
No blame for crimes: Because people lack free will, they cannot be held morally responsible in the traditional sense.
YES, BUT THIS IS ONLY HALF OF THE EQUATION, ATLA. YOU'RE MISSIG THE ENTIRE SECOND HALF.
The question: If people knew they would not be blamed for their crimes, would their conscience still prevent them from doing wrong?
NO, THEY WOULD GRAB ANYTHING THAT WASN'T NAILED DOWN.
2. Key Terms Defined
Conscience: An internal sense of right and wrong, often involving guilt or shame when one contemplates or commits wrongdoing.
Blame: External condemnation, often tied to moral or legal responsibility.
Satisfactory: Subjectively most rewarding—what a person values or desires most in a given moment.
3. Under Psychological Determinism
If people always act in the way that brings them the most satisfaction, then:
Whether or not they commit crimes depends on what is most satisfactory to them at that moment.
If they believe that committing a crime will bring more satisfaction (due to financial gain, revenge, etc.), and there are no countervailing satisfactions (like guilt, fear of punishment, or disapproval), then they will commit the crime.
Removal of external blame might increase the likelihood of crime unless internal deterrents (like conscience) remain strong.
UNDER THE CHANGED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS, INTERNAL DETERRENTS LIKE CONSCIENCE BECOME MUCH STRONGER... BUT NOT UNTIL CHANGES ARE MADE TO OUR PRESENT ENVIRONMENT WHERE THESE PRINCIPLES CAN EFFECTIVELY OPERATE.
4. Will Conscience Still Function Without Blame?
That depends on how conscience is built:
(a) Conscience as Internalized Social Norms
If conscience is largely the result of social conditioning—internalized parental, cultural, or religious values—then people may feel guilt even if they’re told they won’t be externally blamed.
In this case, conscience would still deter crime, because guilt is unpleasant, and people prefer to avoid unpleasant feelings. This makes acting in accordance with conscience the more “satisfactory” path.
(b) Conscience as Dependent on External Blame
If conscience is sustained only because people expect blame, punishment, or ostracism, then removing external blame might weaken conscience.
Without fear of social consequences, people might stop feeling guilt or shame, making crime more "satisfactory" in some cases.
So: it depends on the psychological construction of the individual’s conscience.
YOU CAN'T GO BY THIS BECAUSE CONSCIENCE WORKS IN A SPECIFIC WAY. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE CAN ONLY GATHER INFORMATION THAT IS PRESENTLY AVAILABLE. IT HAS NO UNDERSTANDING OF THIS DISCOVERY SO IT CANNOT ANSWER TO IT. IT IS THE VERY KNOWLEDGE THAT WE WILL BE BLAMED AND PUNISHED THAT GIVE US THE ADVANCE JUSTIFICATION TO DO THAT WHICH THESE THREATS ARE TRYING TO PREVENT. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THESE THREATS CAUSE "WRONGDOING." IT JUST GIVES PEOPLE ANOTHER WAY THEY CAN SHIFT THEIR RESPONSIBILITY KNOWING THEY WILL BE PUNISHED, IF CAUGHT, THEREBY GIVING THEM THE NECESSARY JUSTIFICATION TO GO AHEAD WITH WHAT THEY ARE CONTEMPLATING.
5. Implications of the Premise
If everyone does what is most satisfactory to them, then conscience works as a deterrent only if guilt or internal discomfort outweighs the satisfaction of the crime.
AND IT WILL BECAUSE THAT IS HOW CONSCIENCE WORKS, BUT AGAIN, MANY CHANGES HAVE TO BE MADE IN THE ENVIRONMENT THAT INVOLVES HOW CHILDREN ARE RAISED, AND HOW ALL AUTHORITY AND CONTROL (INCLUDING CERTAIN FORMS OF GOVERNMENT) ARE REMOVED.
Even in a world without free will:
People still have preferences and dispositions shaped by genes, upbringing, and experience.
Some people may be naturally empathetic, finding it painful to harm others—so they won't commit crimes, blame or no blame.
Others might lack such inhibitions, and if there’s no external punishment or internal guilt, they might commit crimes more freely.
THAT IS THE TYPICAL THEORY. PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT PREDISPOSITIONS BUT FOR THESE PREDISPOSITIONS TO BE ACTIVATED NEGATIVELY, THERE HAS TO BE A REASON GIVEN TO CONSCIENCE THAT ALLOWS SUCH ACTIONS. REMEMBER, AS THIS GREAT TRANSITION TAKES PLACE, A NEW GENERATION WILL BE BORN THAT WILL NOT BE EXPOSED TO THE CHALLENGES THAT HAVE CAUSED MANY TO CHOOSE CRIME IN THE DIRECTION OF GREATER SATISFACTION.
6. Real-World Analogy: Psychopathy
Many psychopaths don’t feel guilt or remorse, yet they can still refrain from crime due to fear of consequences.
If you remove blame and they don’t have a functioning conscience, their motivation to refrain disappears.
This suggests that in some individuals, conscience isn’t enough without blame.
TO REPEAT: BARRING A BRAIN TUMOR OR SOME OTHER SERIOUS PATHOLOGICAL CONDITION WHERE A PERSON'S CONSCIENCE COULD NOT CONTROL HIS BEHAVIOR, HE WOULD HAVE TO BE INSTITUTIONALIZED SO AS NOT TO HURT OTHERS, BUT THIS WILL BE RARE AND VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE WHEN A NEW GENERATION IS BORN INTO THE NEW WORLD.
--------------
Conclusion
Yes, for some people, their conscience would still stop them from committing crimes, even if they knew they wouldn't be blamed—because guilt, shame, or empathy are themselves psychologically unsatisfactory.
But for others, especially those whose conscience is weak or dependent on external validation, the absence of blame might reduce inhibition and increase wrongdoing.
CONSCIENCE IS DICTATED BY THE ENVIRONMENT AND RIGHT NOW IT DOES NOT RUN AT FULL CAPACITY. IN THE NEW WORLD, CONSCIENCE WILL REACH A LEVEL THAT WILL PREVENT THESE WRONGDOINGS THAT IT HAD PERMITTED IN THE PAST.
In a deterministic model, whether conscience deters crime depends on how it's internalized and how powerful it is relative to other drives.
Conclusion
THE EMPIRICAL PROOF WILL BE SHOWN TO BE ACCURATE WHEN THESE PRINCIPLES ARE PUT INTO EFFECT WORLDWIDE. HE GAVE US THE BLUEPRINT BUT IT'S UP TO US TO APPLY IT. YOU CAN LEAD A HORSE TO WATER, BUT YOU CAN'T MAKE HIM DRINK.