HOME   People do good because they are human, not because they are religious! 

Do not give God any credit for the good they do, they did it!

 

Is Determinism - the denial of free will dangerous and soul destroying?

ARE WE ANIMALS THAT THROUGH LUCK HAVE A NICER WAY OF BEING ANIMALS?

 

People fear that if you deny free will or argue that the will we have is the same as what animals have though the consequences are better that you degrade human beings and thus will just pave the way for grave evil to happen and be considered just a natural unavoidable displeasure that has no moral aspect.

 

Dolphins gang rape.

 

Some monkeys who hate other monkeys will try to steal their babies and will cruelly kill them.

 

Cats torment mice for fun.

 

Because these creatures cannot think of rights and respect we consider them blameless.

 

Because these creatures therefore cannot understand rights and respect we consider them blameless.

 

They cannot have a moral responsibility because they cannot have a conscience.

 

Even if they had their will is under the control of their biology not them so they cannot exercise that responsibility.

 

It is argued that as they have no moral responsibility, for that reason we cannot regard them as important or as worthy of consideration and respect as we would a human being.  They cannot have the same rights as us and what rights they have they do not have them for the same reasons.

 

Let us read  between the lines.

 

Animals might have a conscience but it never gets past the animal's biology.

 

If having human rights involves knowing

 

THERE IS MORE

 

Denying free will does not make the word should obsolete because even if we are machines the word should still applies. We say a printer should print a letter neatly.

A person should do what they want to do for there is no need for anybody running anybody’s life and there should be as little external compulsion as possible.

People only do evil because they are unhappy. Determinism, the denial of free will makes them more understanding of others and themselves so they can press the right buttons in people to make society a better place. To be happy we should rejoice in people and not in material things and in simple things. It is not true that we can’t live a good life without belief in free will. Nobody can prove it anyway, it is blind faith, and still we are okay.

Determinism does say that what will happen will happen. But the determinist cannot say that they should do evil for they will do it anyway for they can just as easily say they should do good for they will do good anyway.

It is commonly presumed that determinism, and we know determinism is true, denies the validity of reason. If we were produced without the agency of an all-truthful God and are programmed by chance it seems that our reason might be unreliable.   It seems it might not have been programmed or set right. But no matter what we do we are still assuming that our reason is right anyway. We know by experience that reason works. For instance, reason says that if I step into a hole I will fall and experience verifies this so I don’t need circles and assumptions.

It is said that if we were programmed by our past we would make no progress. But in fact the programming might have planted the power to do better than before in us which lies latent until then. A computer that always performs at the same level of efficiency can contain an element waiting to work that makes it improve. The computer is not free so progress does not refute the denial of free will.

It is evil to believe in free will because we can live without believing in it and it rouses hatred and grudges and condemnation and revenge so it is an unnecessary evil and should not be believed even if we could be free. Why condemn hate when you sow the seeds for it by teaching that free will is real? It is evil for anybody to tell me I have free will when I am most sure of my own existence for I have no experience that proves I have free will.

Will denial of free will take away guilt feelings? But guilt should not be stopping us from doing evil and then we would still be evil for if it were not for the guilt we would be doing it so we still want to do it. Even if we are free we are only rewarded for things we got through chance so we can deny free will and still give out rewards. We are rewarded for success not merit which is why you cannot take a gold medal off an Olympic medallist who doesn’t have the right attitude to deserve what she or he gets.

As for punishment nobody knows how guilty a person really is or what kind of pressures and disorders led them to commit anti-social acts. All agree that there is something wrong with a person who does evil but they cannot say for sure how guilty this makes them because it could be that since the disorder is forced on us it might force us without us even realising it. Even free will cannot justify the legalised revenge that is one of its attractions.

If you believe in free will just so that you can reward that means that you are doing it because you can punish as well - a punishment is a reward in reverse! If that is what you want the doctrine for them that is spiteful.

If you assume that reason is right for a God of total truth exists and made us and it and that God exists for reason says so then you are using circular reasoning. It is akin to saying that the Devil is God because I feel he is and that my feeling is right for the Devil is God. You could prove anything with that kind of thinking. Its called circular reasoning.  Circular reasoning denies the authority of reason. You are still assuming with circular reasoning that reason is set correctly. So you might as well assume it without bringing God into it. The argument of the religionists is making reason depend on the assumption that there is a God. If you say God exists therefore reason is true it gets interesting. You are just assuming that reason is true because you are assuming God. You are saying that God exists without reason which is irrational. It would be more reasonable to simply assume that reason is right without bringing a God into it for the God hypothesis is only a guess itself anyway.
 
Determinism, guilt and punishment

Determinism, being the denial of free will, takes away anger against persons. It makes you angry about what they do but not them.
 
When we reward, we do it because of the outward actions of the person. Real rewards focus on the motive far more than the achievement. We still reward achievements when the person admits to making the achievements from an unworthy motive. Determinists could reward then like the free-willists do for the rewards are not the real thing anyway.
 
We could live without rewards and praise being rational activities for they will happen anyway for people like doing them and getting them. So it is nonsense to think we need free will to make them plausible.
 
If we believe in free will for the sake of believing in punishment then we are vindictive people indeed.
 
The law of the land and any other law is for public order and not for rewarding or punishing. That’s all and that is how it should be. People believe in free will because they want to believe in rewards and punishing but this is a mistake. It is better to see a bad person as sick rather than as somebody who is wilfully evil when we can and we always can. Always! It is less harsh and that is why God and free will go hand in hand so belief in God is bad news.
 
The only reason we revere rewards and punishments, paying people back for what they have freely done, is because of their effects. But we can behave as if we believe these things just for the sake of the effects.
 
Will determinism destroy morality?
 
The scaremongers maintain that if determinism is true then there is no morality. True. But who gives a damn when we can still behave like moral free agents would?
Could we be happy if nature made people behave in a loving way towards us though they were not free? Yes we would. We are happiest when we are sure that our girlfriend or boyfriend or siblings or parents are FORCED by nature herself to have great loving feelings towards us. The person who freely does good to us gets less adulation from us. The parent who wants to hate the child often cannot.

Determinism does not advocate treating people as automatons. People are not the same as calculators or computers. What a person wants should be respected for they have feelings and feel free and have a right to live according to their nature when it harms none. All are priceless therefore equal.

Free will and determinism both might psyche some people up to behave cruelly. Free will implies that we deserve all we get for deserve means earning and consenting to good or bad treatment depending on the nature of the act. Free will does justify hurting those who are supposedly deserving but determinism does not. It means that whoever hurts you is not doing wrong in hurting you though it may be wrong for other reasons. It would be wrong to have people hurting themselves to feel sorry for you if you deserve your troubles. Determinism implies that you are not terrible if you harm others for it is not your fault but nature’s. There is nothing that we can do if people abuse the doctrines. People will be happier without the negativity of judgement that free will brings and when people are happier they are much less likely to harm. Even for free will to imply that it is better when there is a choice to hurt a person who is free for he deserves it to some extent than to hurt a person who is not free which it does imply necessarily, is diabolical. Free will is just an anarchist philosophy.

Determinism does say that what will happen will happen. But the determinist cannot say that they should do evil for they will do it anyway for they can just as easily say they should do good for they will do good anyway.

Determinists can be more optimistic and enthusiastic in trying to change people for the better than indeterminists because they believe that if the right buttons were pressed people would be healthy, happy and good. The indeterminist just has to hope that they will change and that is all. Hope is associated with fear. Free willism justifies fear and fear always leads to violence, first inner violence against yourself and then against others and often explodes into outer physical attacks on others for it is violence taking over you. When anybody says that God does not want us to be afraid of him they should be laughed at. Free will and religion are about fear and when they are not they should be. But determinists hope as well you may say. But not to the extent that free willists do.

If most people in your community believed in determinism or at least that free will might exist but we should live as if it does not exist then sincere goodness would be commoner. People know they will be seen as ill if they do wrong and not as bad. This will encourage them to do good because they want to do good and not just because good pays which it does in a society that condemns people who do wrong and hates them. To do good because it pays means you never know if a person is really good or not or is just doing good to be liked and make a good impression for their own sake.

If determinism were as harmful as belief if free will it would still be better to adopt it instead of the latter just in case we are not free.

It is certainly not any worse. It is actually best.