Philosophy Now Forum

Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms the right to "freedom of thought, conscience, and religion," including the right to change one's beliefs and manifest them in teaching, practice, worship, and observance. While this principle seems noble, a deterministic perspective invites us to scrutinize its implications more deeply, particularly concerning the indoctrination of children and the dissemination of falsehoods.

If human behavior and beliefs are entirely the result of preceding causes—biological, social, and environmental—then the concept of true freedom of thought becomes questionable. Children, for instance, are not born with the capacity to freely choose their beliefs; instead, they are molded by the ideologies of their caregivers, communities, and institutions. This raises an ethical concern: is it justifiable to instill unprovable or demonstrably false religious beliefs in children, knowing that such indoctrination can heavily influence their future reasoning, decisions, and actions?

From the standpoint of Ex Falso Quodlibet—the principle that anything can follow from a falsehood—should societies tolerate the propagation of unverifiable claims under the guise of religious freedom? When falsehoods are embedded early in life, they can distort an individual's worldview, limit their capacity for critical thinking, and perpetuate cycles of misinformation and conflict.

A deterministic approach suggests that beliefs and actions stem from causal chains rather than individual choice. This understanding challenges the ethicality of allowing unchecked "freedom" to impose ideologies on young minds or spread falsehoods in the public sphere. Should there be limits on religious expression to safeguard intellectual integrity, particularly for children? And if so, how can these limits be reconciled with human rights?

I invite members to discuss Article 18 through this lens. How might a deterministic framework reshape our understanding of freedom of belief? What ethical responsibilities do societies and parents have in ensuring that beliefs instilled in children align with truth and reason, rather than inherited dogma or convenient falsehoods?

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2025 9:00 pm Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms the right to "freedom of thought, conscience, and religion," including the right to change one's beliefs and manifest them in teaching, practice, worship, and observance. While this principle seems noble, a deterministic perspective invites us to scrutinize its implications more deeply, particularly concerning the indoctrination of children and the dissemination of falsehoods.

If human behavior and beliefs are entirely the result of preceding causes—biological, social, and environmental—then the concept of true freedom of thought becomes questionable. Children, for instance, are not born with the capacity to freely choose their beliefs; instead, they are molded by the ideologies of their caregivers, communities, and institutions. This raises an ethical concern: is it justifiable to instill unprovable or demonstrably false religious beliefs in children, knowing that such indoctrination can heavily influence their future reasoning, decisions, and actions?

From the standpoint of Ex Falso Quodlibet—the principle that anything can follow from a falsehood—should societies tolerate the propagation of unverifiable claims under the guise of religious freedom? When falsehoods are embedded early in life, they can distort an individual's worldview, limit their capacity for critical thinking, and perpetuate cycles of misinformation and conflict.

A deterministic approach suggests that beliefs and actions stem from causal chains rather than individual choice. This understanding challenges the ethicality of allowing unchecked "freedom" to impose ideologies on young minds or spread falsehoods in the public sphere. Should there be limits on religious expression to safeguard intellectual integrity, particularly for children? And if so, how can these limits be reconciled with human rights?

I invite members to discuss Article 18 through this lens. How might a deterministic framework reshape our understanding of freedom of belief? What ethical responsibilities do societies and parents have in ensuring that beliefs instilled in children align with truth and reason, rather than inherited dogma or convenient falsehoods?

I think, it's a moot point. Who is going to give themselves the authority to go around the world yanking children away from their parents because their parents are teaching them the wrong things? In a sense, you are right, a child brought up in a repressive or deluded atmosphere of parenting is a tragic occurrence but who is to make that decision for others? Of course, there are cases where the state might intervene in a family for justifiable reasons of safety but having erroneous thoughts just doesn't always seem to be one of those reasons.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2025 9:17 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2025 9:00 pm

I think, it's a moot point. Who is going to give themselves the authority to go around the world yanking children away from their parents because their parents are teaching them the wrong things? In a sense, you are right, a child brought up in a repressive or deluded atmosphere of parenting is a tragic occurrence but who is to make that decision for others? Of course, there are cases where the state might intervene in a family for justifiable reasons of safety but having erroneous thoughts just doesn't always seem to be one of those reasons.

Gary, I appreciate your thoughtful response, but I think the issue deserves a closer look, especially from a deterministic standpoint. Let me clarify what I mean.

No one is suggesting a dystopian scenario where authorities "yank children away" simply because their parents hold beliefs others disagree with. This isn't about punishing people for having "erroneous thoughts"; it's about recognizing the societal consequences of perpetuating falsehoods, particularly when they are imposed on the most vulnerable—children. The question isn’t whether parents should teach their children their values, but whether those values should include demonstrably false or harmful ideas, especially when they can shape the child’s entire worldview.

Think of it this way: If we accept that a child’s mind is deeply impressionable and that belief systems—once instilled—are exceedingly difficult to dismantle, then knowingly teaching falsehoods is akin to locking a child into a mental framework they didn’t choose and cannot easily escape. Is that freedom? Or is it a form of intellectual imprisonment that compromises their ability to reason, question, and engage critically with the world?

In a deterministic world, where actions stem from causes, allowing the unchecked propagation of falsehoods creates causal chains that perpetuate conflict, ignorance, and suffering. Teaching children the truth—or at least the best approximation of truth we can achieve—is not about control; it's about giving them the tools to navigate reality as it is, not as someone wishes it to be. To knowingly do otherwise is, at best, irresponsible and, at worst, abusive.

The idea here is not to criminalize belief itself but to foster a societal framework where intellectual integrity is valued, especially in education. If you agree that the state intervenes for a child’s physical safety, why not also for their intellectual safety? Misinformation—when embedded in young minds—has lasting consequences that ripple far beyond the individual, influencing entire societies.

The United Nations, in championing human rights, should also champion the truth. Shouldn’t children have the right to grow up unshackled by dogmas that misrepresent reality? Perpetuating falsehoods under the guise of freedom is not a human right—it’s a failure of our collective responsibility to protect and nurture intellectual honesty. What are your thoughts on drawing that line? How can we ensure protection without overstepping into authoritarianism?

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2025 10:01 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2025 9:17 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2025 9:00 pm

I think, it's a moot point. Who is going to give themselves the authority to go around the world yanking children away from their parents because their parents are teaching them the wrong things? In a sense, you are right, a child brought up in a repressive or deluded atmosphere of parenting is a tragic occurrence but who is to make that decision for others? Of course, there are cases where the state might intervene in a family for justifiable reasons of safety but having erroneous thoughts just doesn't always seem to be one of those reasons.

Gary, I appreciate your thoughtful response, but I think the issue deserves a closer look, especially from a deterministic standpoint. Let me clarify what I mean.

No one is suggesting a dystopian scenario where authorities "yank children away" simply because their parents hold beliefs others disagree with. This isn't about punishing people for having "erroneous thoughts"; it's about recognizing the societal consequences of perpetuating falsehoods, particularly when they are imposed on the most vulnerable—children. The question isn’t whether parents should teach their children their values, but whether those values should include demonstrably false or harmful ideas, especially when they can shape the child’s entire worldview.

Think of it this way: If we accept that a child’s mind is deeply impressionable and that belief systems—once instilled—are exceedingly difficult to dismantle, then knowingly teaching falsehoods is akin to locking a child into a mental framework they didn’t choose and cannot easily escape. Is that freedom? Or is it a form of intellectual imprisonment that compromises their ability to reason, question, and engage critically with the world?

In a deterministic world, where actions stem from causes, allowing the unchecked propagation of falsehoods creates causal chains that perpetuate conflict, ignorance, and suffering. Teaching children the truth—or at least the best approximation of truth we can achieve—is not about control; it's about giving them the tools to navigate reality as it is, not as someone wishes it to be. To knowingly do otherwise is, at best, irresponsible and, at worst, abusive.

The idea here is not to criminalize belief itself but to foster a societal framework where intellectual integrity is valued, especially in education. If you agree that the state intervenes for a child’s physical safety, why not also for their intellectual safety? Misinformation—when embedded in young minds—has lasting consequences that ripple far beyond the individual, influencing entire societies.

The United Nations, in championing human rights, should also champion the truth. Shouldn’t children have the right to grow up unshackled by dogmas that misrepresent reality? Perpetuating falsehoods under the guise of freedom is not a human right—it’s a failure of our collective responsibility to protect and nurture intellectual honesty. What are your thoughts on drawing that line? How can we ensure protection without overstepping into authoritarianism?

Like I say, it's a moot point. There's nothing we can do about such things short of potentially draconian measures. It's just life. I guess we could dwell on the thought if we want. But it doesn't seem all that important to me to do so.

I don't understand what determinism has to do with it. Either freedom of thought is a thing we want or it isn't. It's about freedom from the law, not any kind of mystical libertarian free will.

The alternative to freedom of thought is that the government gets to dictate all truths for everyone, and it's painfully obvious how terrible of an idea that would be. What kinds of bullshit would the Trump administration demand we believe, for example? The idea of taking away freedom of thought only looks appealing to you when you have the idea that YOU and people you agree with are the ones in control of the approved facts. If they're not, it's quite obviously a terrible idea.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2025 10:53 pm I don't understand what determinism has to do with it. Either freedom of thought is a thing we want or it isn't. It's about freedom from the law, not any kind of mystical libertarian free will.

The alternative to freedom of thought is that the government gets to dictate all truths for everyone, and it's painfully obvious how terrible of an idea that would be. What kinds of bullshit would the Trump administration demand we believe, for example? The idea of taking away freedom of thought only looks appealing to you when you have the idea that YOU and people you agree with are the ones in control of the approved facts. If they're not, it's quite obviously a terrible idea.

Flannel Jesus, I see where you’re coming from, but I think there's a misunderstanding about what a deterministic approach to this issue entails. This isn’t about denying "freedom of thought" in the sense of forcing people to accept a single, government-sanctioned truth. Nor is it about assuming that "we" will always be in charge of deciding what’s true. It’s about addressing the ethical implications of perpetuating falsehoods, especially to children, within the framework of deterministic cause and effect.

Let’s unpack this. Determinism is about recognizing that all beliefs and behaviors are the result of prior causes. When it comes to children, those causes—parents, schools, religions, or governments—hold immense power in shaping their mental framework. Freedom of thought can only be meaningful if individuals are equipped with the tools to think critically and distinguish truth from falsehood. If a child is taught to accept unprovable or blatantly false claims as unquestionable truth, their ability to think freely is effectively sabotaged before it even begins.

Your point about government control is valid—state-sanctioned "truth" has historically led to terrible abuses. But the alternative to unfettered "freedom" isn’t authoritarianism; it’s fostering a society that prioritizes evidence, reason, and intellectual honesty. Governments and institutions should not dictate what people must believe, but they do have a responsibility to ensure that what is taught—especially to children—meets a basic standard of factual integrity. For instance, we accept that schools should teach scientifically accurate information about biology and physics. Why should religion or ideology get a pass when it comes to the same standards?

Take your example of a Trump administration dictating "truths." It’s a great point—without rigorous standards for evidence and intellectual honesty, any government could use "freedom of thought" as a shield to propagate lies. That’s why we need safeguards, not to force belief, but to prevent harmful misinformation from being ingrained in young, impressionable minds under the guise of freedom.

So, the question isn’t whether freedom of thought is good or bad. The question is whether we can truly call it "freedom" if it’s based on unchecked falsehoods. How do we balance protecting intellectual autonomy while ensuring that education, especially for children, is grounded in truth? That’s where I think determinism sheds light—by showing that beliefs are shaped, not chosen, it emphasizes our responsibility to ensure the shaping forces are as rational and evidence-based as possible. What’s your take on that balance?

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2025 11:15 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2025 10:53 pm I don't understand what determinism has to do with it. Either freedom of thought is a thing we want or it isn't. It's about freedom from the law, not any kind of mystical libertarian free will.

The alternative to freedom of thought is that the government gets to dictate all truths for everyone, and it's painfully obvious how terrible of an idea that would be. What kinds of bullshit would the Trump administration demand we believe, for example? The idea of taking away freedom of thought only looks appealing to you when you have the idea that YOU and people you agree with are the ones in control of the approved facts. If they're not, it's quite obviously a terrible idea.

Flannel Jesus, I see where you’re coming from, but I think there's a misunderstanding about what a deterministic approach to this issue entails. This isn’t about denying "freedom of thought" in the sense of forcing people to accept a single, government-sanctioned truth. Nor is it about assuming that "we" will always be in charge of deciding what’s true. It’s about addressing the ethical implications of perpetuating falsehoods, especially to children, within the framework of deterministic cause and effect.

Perpetuating falsehoods on children is not good. I think we can all agree with that. Now the 64 million dollar question is, what is true and what is false. For example, how sure can we be that conscious beings are as determined by mechanical processes as a "rock rolling downhill"?

So here's an example. Someone slaps me in the face. My immediate sensation is anger. Then what happens? Let's say I slap him or her back. That seems like a pretty tight causal chain in the classical sense. But what if I choose not to slap them back in spite of my anger boiling over with the desire to slap them back. How much can we look at that and conclude that it's a "causal chain" that "forced" me to withhold the temptation to slap them back?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2025 11:26 pm So here's an example. Someone slaps me in the face. My immediate sensation is anger. Then what happens? Let's say I slap him or her back. That seems like a pretty tight causal chain in the classical sense. But what if I choose not to slap them back in spite of my anger boiling over with the desire to slap them back. How much can we look at that and conclude that it's a "causal chain" that "forced" me to withhold the temptation to slap them back?

Gary, this is a great example to explore how determinism works in practice, and it highlights the nuance of the concept.

In a deterministic framework, even the choice not to slap back—despite the anger you feel—is part of a causal chain. The restraint you demonstrate isn’t “free” in the sense of being uncaused. Instead, it’s the result of a multitude of factors: your upbringing, past experiences, moral values, societal norms, perhaps even your understanding of consequences or a rational assessment of the situation. These factors influence how your brain processes the anger and ultimately lead to the decision to hold back.

What feels like a “choice” is still determined by these underlying causes. The fact that you don’t give in to the immediate emotional impulse doesn’t mean you’ve escaped the causal chain—it means the chain includes elements like self-control mechanisms, shaped by your biology and environment, that override the impulse to retaliate.

Think about it this way: If we rewound the scenario and played it out again with all the same conditions—your mood, your past experiences, the exact circumstances of the slap—would you ever respond differently? A deterministic view says no, because your response is the inevitable outcome of the causes in play at that moment.

This doesn’t mean you were “forced” to withhold the slap in the way a puppet is forced to move by strings. It means the decision emerged naturally from the complex interplay of causes influencing your behavior. It feels free because you’re not aware of all those causes at work, but they’re there nonetheless.

The broader implication is that every human action—whether it’s immediate and reactive or carefully restrained—stems from a web of causes. Understanding this doesn’t diminish the importance of self-control or moral responsibility. In fact, it can deepen our empathy: if someone lacks restraint and acts out, it’s not because they “chose” poorly in some isolated vacuum, but because the causes shaping their behavior didn’t include the same capacity for restraint you might have.

So, when you refrain from slapping back, that’s not breaking the causal chain—it’s your unique causal chain in action. Does that make sense? What do you think it says about moral responsibility in situations like this?

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2025 11:36 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2025 11:26 pm So here's an example. Someone slaps me in the face. My immediate sensation is anger. Then what happens? Let's say I slap him or her back. That seems like a pretty tight causal chain in the classical sense. But what if I choose not to slap them back in spite of my anger boiling over with the desire to slap them back. How much can we look at that and conclude that it's a "causal chain" that "forced" me to withhold the temptation to slap them back?

Gary, this is a great example to explore how determinism works in practice, and it highlights the nuance of the concept.

In a deterministic framework, even the choice not to slap back—despite the anger you feel—is part of a causal chain. The restraint you demonstrate isn’t “free” in the sense of being uncaused. Instead, it’s the result of a multitude of factors: your upbringing, past experiences, moral values, societal norms, perhaps even your understanding of consequences or a rational assessment of the situation. These factors influence how your brain processes the anger and ultimately lead to the decision to hold back.

What feels like a “choice” is still determined by these underlying causes. The fact that you don’t give in to the immediate emotional impulse doesn’t mean you’ve escaped the causal chain—it means the chain includes elements like self-control mechanisms, shaped by your biology and environment, that override the impulse to retaliate.

Think about it this way: If we rewound the scenario and played it out again with all the same conditions—your mood, your past experiences, the exact circumstances of the slap—would you ever respond differently? A deterministic view says no, because your response is the inevitable outcome of the causes in play at that moment.

This doesn’t mean you were “forced” to withhold the slap in the way a puppet is forced to move by strings. It means the decision emerged naturally from the complex interplay of causes influencing your behavior. It feels free because you’re not aware of all those causes at work, but they’re there nonetheless.

The broader implication is that every human action—whether it’s immediate and reactive or carefully restrained—stems from a web of causes. Understanding this doesn’t diminish the importance of self-control or moral responsibility. In fact, it can deepen our empathy: if someone lacks restraint and acts out, it’s not because they “chose” poorly in some isolated vacuum, but because the causes shaping their behavior didn’t include the same capacity for restraint you might have.

So, when you refrain from slapping back, that’s not breaking the causal chain—it’s your unique causal chain in action. Does that make sense? What do you think it says about moral responsibility in situations like this?

If someone slaps me and I slap them back and then they slap me back. That seems like a "causal chain". However, refraining from slapping them back seems like an interruption in that chain. I mean, I can't think of any machine that would have two possibilities to choose from. A calculator does what a calculator does. It performs tasks according to what it is programmed to do. However, a computer would not have the possibility of choosing an alternative action. not having the possibility of choosing alternatives is a "deterministic" system to me.

What is not a deterministic system to me is genuinely having the choice to not respond in kind to something. That's a bit more miraculous than just slapping someone back. And freely choosing among more than one possibility is not something a machine can do. A machine must do what it is programmed to do. It has no other parameters, no other possibilities. If something can freely choose a course of action between multiple possibilities, then it is no longer a "machine". It's become something beyond that. It is outside the deterministic mechanisms of the universe.

Were you 'determined' to use obnoxious American spelling?

So here's the next question, BigMike. You create a calculator and you somehow miraculously figure out how to give the calculator a choice between two possible alternative actions that it can perform without being programmed to do one thing over the other. The calculator seems to choose of it's own free will (and it is not just a random process that causes the calculator to choose different actions over another). Now what?

If you unplug the calculator are you committing "murder" the same as if you cut off a person's arms preventing them from eating or drinking for the rest of their lives? Or conversely, if you decide not to unplug the calculator because it would be "murder" to do so, then what would you do if that calculator ended up killing another human being? And what if the calculator kept killing other human beings. Would you unplug it? And if so, would you unplug (deprive a person of food and liquid) if they kept killing other human beings?

accelafine wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2025 12:13 am Were you 'determined' to use obnoxious American spelling?

Who are you talking to? And why are you interjecting that into the conversation? Are you a machine that only interjects insults or do you have the free will not to?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2025 12:20 am

accelafine wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2025 12:13 am Were you 'determined' to use obnoxious American spelling?

Who are you talking to? And why are you interjecting that into the conversation? Are you a machine that only interjects insults or do you have the free will not to?

There is no free will, so I have no control over what I do. I'm also determined to tell you that it wasn't directed at you.

accelafine wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2025 12:35 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2025 12:20 am

accelafine wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2025 12:13 am Were you 'determined' to use obnoxious American spelling?

Who are you talking to? And why are you interjecting that into the conversation? Are you a machine that only interjects insults or do you have the free will not to?

There is no free will, so I have no control over what I do. I'm also determined to tell you that it wasn't directed at you.

Would you please include in your responses which American you are referring to so that I know whether or not I am the one being insulted? Not that I will insult you back, but I don't want to feel left out.