Blame is a Prejudice (Free-Will & Determinism)

Round 3:Free Debate/Refutation/Criticism of Opposing Arguments Can I just say, thanks for the extremely detailed and interesting response. Now; 1--- While I agree with the majority of what con says, readers have to realize that while Determinism is the reality, it is not the ideology. “(a)he cannot rightly comdemn any action... support the penalty system.” It is true that I cannot rightly condemn any person for their wrong doings; however, there is a necessity to preserve the safety of the peoples who make up the society. And so, my response to (b) is this; While there are moral issues with punishing wrong doers of society, it is the lesser of two evils. 2--- I’d like to propose the idea that, with the knowledge of hard determinism comes the responsibility to accept it, which can be extremely difficult for those of us who have lived a large part of our lives blaming and judging those who do wrong. I, for one, would not be happy if a man was locked up for murder, but I accept the reality of the fact that he is more of a danger to himself and others if let free. Utilitarian ideas, but what’s the alternative? 3--- While I have touched on the legal system above, I’d like to re-enforce the values, ideas and moral conclusions if we were to accept Determinism. The legal system would no longer be “We are punishing you for doing wrong.” But “we are protecting society from an individual who has been brought up with an anti-social mind-set”. A larger emphasis would be put on rehabilitation, as well as prevention from the source. I believe that Hard Determinism promotes young moral education, actively making us think about our actions. “It seems that even those who deny the existence of free will still live their lives as if it does exist.” This is completely true. It is known in philosophy as the greatest illusion in the world. I, however, live under the above idea: Determinism is the reality, while ethics is the ideology. I strive to be an ethical person, while realizing my unavoidable determined state. Don’t get me wrong, I realize that the miss-interpretations and alternative conclusions may be detrimental to the wellbeing of society (and example is someone acting on the whim simply because they believe they are determined to do so) but I do not believe that that scenario is either likely or dangerous. Why? 4--- If I may bring up my earlier arguments for Hard Determinism, one point that I wish to further emphasise is that the thought patterns remain the same in a choice. Determinism does not require us to give up choice altogether, but to realize that what we want to do has already been determined. We still have desires, feelings, emotions, changes of mind, but they are all caused by the cause-and-effect determined principle. It feels the same, yet I realize it is different. 5--- “What's the point of trying to persuade anyone at all if everything is already predetermined?” Because it may be determined that they change their minds. There is no reason to change the way they act because reality is set in stone, because everything they will think, do and say has already been accounted for. They are not changing the future whenever they have a change of heart. Hard Determinism, while not being an actual sentient being, is similar to someone who knows their future. If they try to change it, the future will have foreseen it. Again, I am not saying that Determinism is about knowing everything, or future fortune telling, it is simply the fact that if A causes B, and A occurs, B must occur. Simple laws of physics. 6--- One thing that I have not touched on is entropy: the gradual decrease in order (or no order to begin with). In a cause-and-effect universe the only way for un-predictability to exist is if it existed at the start. In this case, the only argument for free-will is the argument for random-will, which is worse than determined-will. The idea that randomness can promote free-will is utter rubbish, and I thank that con did not bring it up. 7--- “But here is another issue, do determinists ever feel shame, regret, or remorse, when they does something wrong?” Yes, because I can’t control the effect that my conscious has on me. Again, I can live under the illusion of free-will, and my conscious is guided by ethics, not reality. I would still feel shame stealing; I would still regret a missed opportunity or a bad action; I would be determined to do so. “in which case simply makes his philosophy a very heartless one.” While I do not believe this, I do feel the need to point out that a philosophical theory should not be judged based on how much con wants it to be true, but how much it holds up to rational scrutiny. 8--- “Pro argues that eternal forces are responsible for our decisions, but this is only partially true... If it were all a matter of us dancing to external forces, then we should all react the same way to the same set of external forces, but we don't.” They have perfectly deterministic reasons. When I hear one piece of evidence supporting atheism, I have my own logical and rational ideas, whereas con has his own. Con does not believe X solely on X’s rhetoric persuasion, con believes X based on how it relates to cons own beliefs, opinions, mood etc. Cons other persuasions are obviously quite diversely different to mine, and thus, even with the same bit of evidence, we will react in entirely different ways. 9--- “We are not pawns in a game of cause and effect, for we can reason and calculate outcomes, making a choice based on the use of logic as opposed to following some predetermined path. Pro will use his reasoning ability to pick apart my argument, and conjure up reasons why he doesn't find it convincing; this reasoning power is not an outside influence, but an internal factor which aids in making free choices.” Again, this can be explained by looking at the above. All ‘internal’ actions are the result of external persuasions that stay in the mind. I am an atheist when I begin reading the arguments for Gods existence, and more than likely I’ll remain an atheist when I finish reading. If, however, I was undecided and I read the arguments, had a different set of ideas about philosophy, then I may have been determined to become a theist. 10--- All internal ‘calculations’ are determined just as much as external ones, simply because they are the result of external ones. We think Y because we were asked X, we conclude Z because we thought Y. Cause-and-effect. 11--- The next argument con gives is one of influences. While these persuasions, or influences, have an effect, they all depend on each other and as a result nothing is definitely a priority. This can be said for all aspects of life. It is said that even a pacifist has a violence limit. Something will make someone tick, and one persuasion will overcome another if a set of events were played out. 12--- Furthermore, the argument con gives about the un-importance of motives (like doing something “just for fun”) does not in any way diminish the power of the argument. If someone does something just for fun they are doing something that is the highest on their list of persuasions. This, as a result, led to the criminal activity. Some people get kicks out of robbing shops, and as long as that’s true, there’ll be people determined to do it. 13--- And so I maintain that because the concept of blame is to have made an expectation that one has failed to meet, it is a form of pre-judgement; a prejudice. Also, while social implications are a large and interesting part of the debate, are there any philosophical grounds to accept Free-Will? The empirical evidence supports Hard Determism quite strongly. Our entire grasp on reality depends on it. Cheers. Also, the numbers just help as paragraph breaks, and references for quotes, if you so wish to use them.