i know this is kind of long, but i'd appreciate no "TL;DR" statements as they're pretty rude.
recently i've become fascinated with the concept of hard determinism-- the concept that human beings have no free will. one of the argument's i've heard about it was that all human beings are controlled by their desires and we don't actually make any choices. the classic example used to support that agument is(not quoting btw):
if, walking in the desert, you are extremely dehydrated and thirstry, and you see a pitcher of water, your instant desire will be to satisfy your thirst. however, if at any time you learn that this pitcher of water is poisoned, you will stop yourself from drinking the water, because, generally speaking, your desire to live is greater than your desire to satisfy your thirst. this does not mean that your desire to satisfy your thirst is eliminated, all it means is that a desire greater than your previous one was a stronger force, and that is what determined your action. you did not make any choice, it was all made by desires.
so you might be thinking "uh...what does this have to do with religion?" So adam and eve were kicked out of eden because they ate the apple-- they made the choice with their own free wil...right? did they? my argument is that their desire, be it curiousity or any other desire, was powerful enough to blind them and prevent them from seeing the immediate consequences of their actions. but you might be thinking "oh it didn't happen that way, they were always completely in control" really? is that why laws have come to recognize this loss of free will in certain aspects? think about it. why do you get less time for premediated murder than for murder in "heat of passion"(EDIT: i meant why do you get less time for in heat of passion than premeditated )? because you termporarily lost control of your will and your desire to murder was a strong enough force to throw out any rational thinking you had. so if adam and even didn't really make any choices, but were just overcome by their desires, morally can they be held responsible?
the second argument was about character. our charater's are who we are. they are influenced by experience, perceptions, interpretations, environments, etc. all of which we have no control over. what makes one person jump out of an airplane and another reject out of fear? their characters. what makes one person homeless while another becomes a wealthy? it's their character. what makes a person hard working and another lazy? their character. what made adam and eve curious to try the apple? their character. so, since they had no control over their character, morally, can they be held responsible for any actions that they made? what made Judas betray jesus? did he make the choice to do so? oh did his desire actually make the choices/ or was it his character that did it? neither of which he has any control over.
it would be rather absurd for anyone to say that crimminals should not be jailed for commiting crimes because of their character because even if this is true, they have broken their societal contracts which is what is required for all human beings to enter into governments. so they should be punished, not because they deserve to be punished, but because they're a threat.
it will be interesting to get some insight on this, thanks for your opinions
recently i've become fascinated with the concept of hard determinism-- the concept that human beings have no free will. one of the argument's i've heard about it was that all human beings are controlled by their desires and we don't actually make any choices. the classic example used to support that agument is(not quoting btw):
if, walking in the desert, you are extremely dehydrated and thirstry, and you see a pitcher of water, your instant desire will be to satisfy your thirst. however, if at any time you learn that this pitcher of water is poisoned, you will stop yourself from drinking the water, because, generally speaking, your desire to live is greater than your desire to satisfy your thirst. this does not mean that your desire to satisfy your thirst is eliminated, all it means is that a desire greater than your previous one was a stronger force, and that is what determined your action. you did not make any choice, it was all made by desires.
so you might be thinking "uh...what does this have to do with religion?" So adam and eve were kicked out of eden because they ate the apple-- they made the choice with their own free wil...right? did they? my argument is that their desire, be it curiousity or any other desire, was powerful enough to blind them and prevent them from seeing the immediate consequences of their actions. but you might be thinking "oh it didn't happen that way, they were always completely in control" really? is that why laws have come to recognize this loss of free will in certain aspects? think about it. why do you get less time for premediated murder than for murder in "heat of passion"(EDIT: i meant why do you get less time for in heat of passion than premeditated )? because you termporarily lost control of your will and your desire to murder was a strong enough force to throw out any rational thinking you had. so if adam and even didn't really make any choices, but were just overcome by their desires, morally can they be held responsible?
the second argument was about character. our charater's are who we are. they are influenced by experience, perceptions, interpretations, environments, etc. all of which we have no control over. what makes one person jump out of an airplane and another reject out of fear? their characters. what makes one person homeless while another becomes a wealthy? it's their character. what makes a person hard working and another lazy? their character. what made adam and eve curious to try the apple? their character. so, since they had no control over their character, morally, can they be held responsible for any actions that they made? what made Judas betray jesus? did he make the choice to do so? oh did his desire actually make the choices/ or was it his character that did it? neither of which he has any control over.
it would be rather absurd for anyone to say that crimminals should not be jailed for commiting crimes because of their character because even if this is true, they have broken their societal contracts which is what is required for all human beings to enter into governments. so they should be punished, not because they deserve to be punished, but because they're a threat.
it will be interesting to get some insight on this, thanks for your opinions
Last edited: