"Free will" means here the ability to make decisions apart from internal obsession or external pressure.
"Determinism" means here that a constant stream of causality (movement as continuation of previous movement) contains few, if any, circumstances beyond slavery to existing causes. Even choice is caused by something and what is not caused may be classified as chaos, or purposeless happenstance without a preceeding stimulus (something randomly appearing for no reason).
"Punishment" in the face of determinism, seems basically appropriate to me where no other more effective treatment against betrayal of free will is available...
That is, "negative conditioning," applied both against the causality-slave whut commited the crime, and the causality-slaves whut become aware of the punishments inflicted.
Where the punishment applied seems unfair socially to others, it is not likely to have a submissive reaction appropriate to create social obedience to human law.
These thoughts inspired by the notion, "If a man were to grab my hand and put a knife in it, and furthermore force my arm to move in such a manner that I stab some person, and if I am powerless to resist, how is it appropriate I be punished for this transgression?" The answer is simply that the causes should be directed as much as possible to result in greatest overall freedom (to some, this might mean "greatest overall enjoyment," however I have not accepted this conclusion (yet?))... And so, while it isn't necessarily "fair" to punish anybody, it may sometimes be necessary where no better method of supporting peace and happiness is available.
Also, many members of our society are incapable of reasoning sufficiently to tackle this issue called Determinism, nor of computing the full implications. A revolution of objective thinking is necessary to solve this problem. Whenever Science mentions Determinism, very passionate and well thought-out objections are raised.
It must also be admitted a very objective, very selfish person is dangerous to the welfare of those around him/her, and if caught putting personal welfare ahead of that of others by betraying the free will of others, such a person invites interference, and punishment where available data most strongly suggests punishment will reduce the overall interference existing in the universe rather than increase it or leave it exactly the same as it was.
The objective perspective, in my opinion, concerning this issue of "selfishly objective" suggests that it would be far easier to apply one's skills to attaining self-sustaining happiness rather than feeding off of others, for to live without betraying freedom would invite the cooperation of other rational beings, rather than at best distrustful cooperation from irrational or objectively selfish beings and at worse interference with one's efforts by anybody.
"Determinism" means here that a constant stream of causality (movement as continuation of previous movement) contains few, if any, circumstances beyond slavery to existing causes. Even choice is caused by something and what is not caused may be classified as chaos, or purposeless happenstance without a preceeding stimulus (something randomly appearing for no reason).
"Punishment" in the face of determinism, seems basically appropriate to me where no other more effective treatment against betrayal of free will is available...
That is, "negative conditioning," applied both against the causality-slave whut commited the crime, and the causality-slaves whut become aware of the punishments inflicted.
Where the punishment applied seems unfair socially to others, it is not likely to have a submissive reaction appropriate to create social obedience to human law.
These thoughts inspired by the notion, "If a man were to grab my hand and put a knife in it, and furthermore force my arm to move in such a manner that I stab some person, and if I am powerless to resist, how is it appropriate I be punished for this transgression?" The answer is simply that the causes should be directed as much as possible to result in greatest overall freedom (to some, this might mean "greatest overall enjoyment," however I have not accepted this conclusion (yet?))... And so, while it isn't necessarily "fair" to punish anybody, it may sometimes be necessary where no better method of supporting peace and happiness is available.
Also, many members of our society are incapable of reasoning sufficiently to tackle this issue called Determinism, nor of computing the full implications. A revolution of objective thinking is necessary to solve this problem. Whenever Science mentions Determinism, very passionate and well thought-out objections are raised.
It must also be admitted a very objective, very selfish person is dangerous to the welfare of those around him/her, and if caught putting personal welfare ahead of that of others by betraying the free will of others, such a person invites interference, and punishment where available data most strongly suggests punishment will reduce the overall interference existing in the universe rather than increase it or leave it exactly the same as it was.
The objective perspective, in my opinion, concerning this issue of "selfishly objective" suggests that it would be far easier to apply one's skills to attaining self-sustaining happiness rather than feeding off of others, for to live without betraying freedom would invite the cooperation of other rational beings, rather than at best distrustful cooperation from irrational or objectively selfish beings and at worse interference with one's efforts by anybody.
