Free Will Belief does not Justify Reward/Punishment
"Punishment makes more sense if you can attribute a deed to a preference, inclination, or attitude (a stable will) within the perpetrator than if you figure the perpetrator could have acted differently – and might act differently next time" Joachim I Krueger Ph.D.
Free will means that you own your action so much that if you could go back in
time you may do it or do something else. You are free to go either way.
What doctrine is the greatest blessing to humanity? The doctrine of free will or
determinism? Determinism is the doctrine that we are not free but programmed by
forces in our minds to do what we do and that we only imagine we have a real
choice. The forces are our forces which is why they make us feel free when we do
what they want. This feeling is used as a reason to think we had the power to do
differently what we did. But it is not a reason at all. Thinking you have free
will because you feel free is a mistake.
Free supposes that I can be for myself or another person - altruistic.
It presupposes that I can sin or become evil. Owning my choice in a moral
sense demands that you presuppose those things.
Everything we do we think is right. Even when we do evil it is because we have
come to temporarily believe that we ought to do it. If doing good just because
it is good is the law then it is immoral to seek to reward a person by praise
for doing good for they do not want it and should not want it. Their attitude is
that virtue is its own reward. They are satisfied just by doing good and
consider that to be the only real reward. So the reward then is insulting the
person. It is not a reward at all. It invites people to do what they see as
wrong. All it is, is a display of hypocrisy if it is practiced by people who say
they believe in sacrifice and in free will. Christianity wants God to have all
the credit for human goodness but still it praises people which means it is a
manipulative faith. Jesus started this giving God all the credit in his parable
of the Pharisee and the Publican where God was pleased with the publican who
never once brought up his good points unlike the Pharisee who thanked God that
he was such a virtuous man. You have to believe we are naturally selfish
creatures to gain anything from giving or receiving rewards which means they are
not really rewards for you need free will to get them. But the truth is we care
about the reward and the honour that comes with it and not our alleged free
will.
We always do what we want to do under the circumstances and
sacrifice/selflessness/altruism is a lie. Even if I give my life to save a
drowning child I did it in response to feelings that demanded that I do it and I
had to satisfy them. You cannot believe that we have free will to do what
gratifies us. That is not free will for the person who refuses to murder and
this is for gratification is not really any different from the person who
murders for gratification. I mean their actions were different but their motives
were the same, self-centred. Don't object that we can change our desires for
when driven for gratification for that does not change the will for
gratification but it only changes the form that gratification will take. The
will is still after the one thing, gratification, so it cannot will anything
else. If you see the will as being the same as a magnet that is attracted to
safety pins and nails - whichever is seen as handiest - you recognise how
impossible it is for free will that is defined as choosing different kinds of
gratification to be free will for it is still after the same thing just like the
magnet likes pins and nails for they have iron in them and is only after the
iron. We only do things because we think they will make us happy. Often we are
wrong. In all the moral systems, it is recognised that mistaken beliefs we
really hadn’t the chance to correct, diminish or eradicate responsibility which
is another proof that free will is no use even for those who wish to believe in
responsibility for why believe in it when it is so reduced? Even when we choose
something and are proven right to think that it makes us happy we are not any
different at all for we could still have been wrong. When responsibility is so
weak what is the use of visiting retribution on anybody when you don’t know how
much of it they really deserve?
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 or think they will be. 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.
We can only do what we feel or think is good, so evil is a sickness that
commands our concern and compassion as much as any other sickness does. Evil is
not a sign of strength but of weakness. Evil is not a sign of cleverness but of
foolishness.
WE DON'T NEED FREE WILL FOR REWARD/PUNISHMENT
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.
What is the point of believing in free will for the sake of rewards and
punishment when nearly all of the time you cannot punish all the wrongs done to
you? Most people get away with their evil so you may as well disbelieve in free
will. If you can’t punish you can’t reward either but go through the motions
which people are happy enough with. Then the reward is something you have to
give, not a real compliment. There is no point in believing in a harmful
doctrine like free will just for the sake of a few people getting punished.
Those that are punished get off lightly with murderers rarely serving a life
sentence anyway. We can cope with this so we can cope without the doctrine of
free will.
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 especially when even free will
fails to do that.
If we are to honour free will then we cannot really reward. So we must only
punish then. Free will implies that we deserve only punishment so if you want to
believe in rewards it is not going to help you do it with consistency and
rationality. Free will can only appeal to those who want others to suffer
punitively. Punishment means paying a person evil for doing evil of their own
free will. It is important that we be conscious of this. Deniers of free will
use pain to discipline criminals but this is not the same as punishment - what
it is, is therapy.
Free will implies that extreme cruelty is fine. How does this fit in with my
claim that it cannot justify rewards for if it cannot justify them it cannot
justify punishment either for punishment is merely a reward in reverse? The
answer is that the purpose of the free will doctrine is to defend responsibility
and though it fails to do that that is what it is for and in so far as it does
that it advocates cruel justice.
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.
The law of the land and any other law is for public order and not for rewarding
or punishing. It is using stick and carrot for public order it is not
using stick and carrot for their own sake. 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 real reason people want to believe in free will is to justify rewards
and punishments – and the latter more than anything else. They want to believe
that no other force but the person doing the act is the cause of the act for
these reasons. First of all, rewards are not given because you have done well.
That is only the excuse for them. They are given because people gain selfish
delight from your achievements just like you do. So we can retain rewards and
deny free will for they only for gratifying the selfishness that we cannot help.
As for punishment, keeping the criminal away from society for a while and using
the infliction of suffering to cure the criminal are what matters not getting
our own back. You only need to believe in free will if you want to believe in
revenge. When we can do without belief in free will we should for it forces many
people to hate and condemn. At least if we denied free will we could honestly
say that if any denier behaves that way that they did it in spite of their
knowledge of the non-existence of free will. Rewarding and punishing are not
important. What is important is giving people reasons not to do wrong for
whether we have free will or not we do everything we do for a reason so we can
be trained to do things for the right reasons. Therefore we can forget about the
dogma of free will and do it safely.
The only difference between a believer in choice and a non-believer is that the
first will believe in reward and punishment which are founded upon the idea of
deserving or earning while the latter will believe in neither. But in practice
the believer does not reward and punish anyway so there is no difference.
Rewards have to do with attaining goals but it is not the goal I care about but
the desire to fulfil the goal. It is just the desire. So I cannot deserve the
reward any more than a person who only helps his father to get his hands on the
father’s money deserves a reward. This is because I am responding to a desire
and desires are just desires. To reward desire has this problem. To reward a
desire is rewarding the results of the desire and to punish a desire is
punishing the result of a desire. You don’t reward an eye for seeing black and
punish it for seeing white. The desire itself is neither good or bad. Our
desires control us. When we go against a desire it is only because we have a
stronger desire that wants us to enjoy the illusion that we can get away from
desire and be free.
The law of the land will send you to jail if you commit murder even if you meant
well – in which case you only thought you were doing right but this is not
punishment for punishment is only for those who have wilfully done wrong and
known it. It is possible to believe that murder is right just as it is possible
to believe that nobody else exists but yourself. Legalised murder was believed
and felt to be right not long ago - when people disagree so much on right and
wrong then why not on murder as well? Criminals are made to suffer for a bad
action but that is not the same thing as punishment. When even the choice
doctrine cannot defend rewards and punishments why should we be afraid to deny
the doctrine? We can still reward and control crime without the doctrine just
like those who accept it do for these things influence behaviour and we want to
help people become good.
We can deny the existence of choice and still give rewards and as for
punishment. We practice much the same thing as believers in choice do except we
do not look upon it as paying the criminal back for doing wrong. The reason is
that even if we do accept that there is such a thing as free choice we never
reward the person’s motives but the outward actions of the person so what
difference does it make? None. We can carry on as we would if we did believe.
You cannot reward choices just because they seem to be good choices for you
can’t see what a person is really after. The motive behind the choice has to
determine if what they did should be rewarded or not. For example, when you
reward the winner of a race you are rewarding the outward actions of the person
and not the motives for you don’t know them and if they are bad and driven by
smug superiority you are not going to be told that. This is not real rewarding
for real rewarding is giving back good for doing good with a kind heart. The
less you see if a person’s motive is good the less any reward is intended to be
a reward for it depends on the extent of your knowledge of the person’s
goodness. And we may ponder if it is right to reward somebody for winning a race
and not reward somebody who tried harder and failed?
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. Believers in free will
don’t really believe in rewards and punishments for they say that evil is
insanity for it is thinking what is not good is good so when it is only the
effects they worry about why can’t we do the same?