> Let's suppose you're right and non-determinism doesn't exist. (Quantum physics apparently disagrees, but never mind that.) Quantum physics doesn't "apparentl

> Let's suppose you're right and non-determinism doesn't exist. (Quantum physics apparently disagrees, but never mind that.) Quantum physics doesn't "apparently disagrees" with what I wrote. > It doesn't matter. Treating people as though they have agency is still necessary, because how we treat them would affect their deterministic state function. If someone commits murder and we say it was only a product of their environment and they have no agency, therefore we shouldn't punish them, well, that's the sort of "choice" that, on a systemic level, causes more people to commit murder. That's an arbitrary view because we haven't viewed a society that understands everything is cause & effect. I will assume a society of that nature would agree upon needing a rehabilitation modal of justice and not a punishment modal. > Even if they have no "choice" in the matter -- especially then -- creating an environment in which murder has personal benefits outweighing the personal costs is societally maladaptive. And so it is with everything else. If we want people to give to charity and go to college and not steal from others then we have to act as if they chose whether or not to do those things and reward or punish them accordingly. Once again this is an arbitrary view and without being able to observe a society that understands cause & effect. Stealing is an outcome from inequality of society & genetics is factored into the problem. A society understanding cause & effect would restructure because inequality becomes understood as the real causes for why bad events happen. Charity, going to college, and not stealing can only be viewed within the current system we live in but would be vastly different in a society understanding cause & effect between all members.