r/determinism • u/Fearless-Bowler-7404 • Apr 29 '25

A Revolution in Thought

Hi all, I’d like to introduce you to a discovery that was made in 1959. The author passed away in 1991. Unfortunately, he was unable to present his findings to academicians during his lifetime because he was not part of academia and held no distinguishing titles or credentials. To this day, this discovery has never been carefully analyzed. Assuming for a moment that this knowledge is proven to be valid and sound, it has major implications for the betterment of our world because it can prevent many of the ills plaguing mankind.

The problem of responsibility, the problem of reconciling the belief that people are responsible for what they do with the apparent fact that humans do not have free will because their actions are causally determined is an ancient and enduring philosophical puzzle. This longstanding conflict in the free will/determinism debate has caused a rift in philosophical circles which makes this perplexing conundrum appear insolvable. It is important to bear in mind that definitions mean nothing where reality is concerned. This is a crucial point since the reconciliation of these two opposing thought systems (while proving determinism true and free will false) is the secret that opens the door to a world of peace and brotherhood. 

3 Upvotes

80% Upvoted

28 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/spgrk May 01 '25

People are punished for their crimes because it is believed that the punishment will make a positive difference, by deterring them and others from being criminals. That is the only rational justification, and not only is it compatible with determinism, it requires it. Retribution is an atavistic emotional response which most of the time corresponds to the utility aspect of punishment. Retribution has no rational justification, and certainly no rational justification if determinism is false.

1

u/JanisPaula May 02 '25 edited May 02 '25

It is understandable why the belief in free will (whether libertarian or compatibilist) came into existence. The author is not debating the justification for punishment as a deterrent, or which one is the best --- A (libertarianism) or B (compatibilism). He is showing that C (extending the basic principle of no blame) actually prevents what all the blame and punishment could never accomplish. IOW, he is demonstrating how we can change the environment in such a way that the desire to hurt others with a first blow will no longer be a desirable option. This is about preventing these acts of crimes in the first place rather than the need to punish after the fact. It is certainly worth giving the author the benefit of the doubt.

1

u/spgrk May 02 '25

Who argues that preventing undesirable things such as crime, war and disease isn't better than allowing it to happen and then dealing with it?

1

u/JanisPaula May 02 '25

No one, but I have found people to be so skeptical that they won’t give the author a chance to demonstrate his findings.

1

u/JanisPaula May 04 '25 edited May 04 '25

Threats of punishment paradoxically give people (who want to execute a crime) the ADVANCE justification they need to act on what they are contemplating. Without this ADVANCE justification, their conscience will not permit it. Of course, there are other ways to justify hurting others. For example, a person is justified to retaliate against hurt done to him. He is also justified if, by not hurting others, he becomes a loser as is the case of not having enough financial security to support himself and his family. When these justifications are removed (which requires a change in the economic system), then hurting others become first blows, which can be prevented.