 What would a largely deterministic society look and behave like? Would it be, as some imagine, a more merciful and just society, or as some others suppose, a veritable wasteland where lawless immorality, cruelty, and hopelessness rang supreme? As I have been reading and listening to various individuals, this has been a question which has been on my mind. Of course, as determinism will be our subject, there is no avoiding the topic of free will. So let us sin bravely and let loose the dogs of philosophic warfare. Part of the difficulty with such subjects is often the semantics involved. So as per our course, I will first state and clarify what I mean when I say determinism and free will respectively. I call determinism that doctrine which holds true that all things are causally determined by their proper causes. I would like to make very clear here that the determinism of which I speak is a determinism of means rather than one of ends. This distinction is important because it maintains that infinite occurrences of the past are not slowly and persistently moving towards some distant immutable end. For example, though I have read the Republic of Plato and took much away from it, Plato did not produce the work so that I could read it yesterday and subsequently explain this to you today. This is the case even though we can reliably say that my reading the book and subsequent use of it in this example would not have been possible if the act of him writing it as well as all the intervening events had not taken place. With this hopefully clarified, let us move on to the definition which we will attribute to free will. I hold that free will is that feeling that we, meaning our conscious mind, are the source of our conscious volitions. That we can think or do what we want in the present independent of prior causation, known or unknown. It is that intuition that if we could go back to a particular moment of the past, without the knowledge that we were doing so of course, then we could think, choose and behave differently than we had the first time. For example, on December 15th, 2021, when I spent the entire day sitting on the couch, I feel that it could have been a day spent hiking outside, even though the chain of events leading up to that particular decision remained unchanged. Now, with these semantics out of the way, let's move on to our question. Does determinism, and in consequence, the absence of free will, rob the human experience of all moral value, and therefore as a result, create apathetic moral monsters? Stated simply, no, I do not believe it does, and I think to explain why I believe this to be true, it would be best to begin by stating the objections or concerns regarding determinism and then addressing them accordingly. First then, there is the problem of crime and general debauchery. If those who commit crimes are not responsible for their actions, then why punish them? Why not just allow them to continue on with their lives? The answer to this conundrum is surprisingly rather simple. We separate them from society because society and all its denizens are better off that way. A mountain lion is still a mountain lion, and though we understand that it is only behaving as its nature and past experiences demand, we still remove it when it becomes a danger to society at large. Again, a mountain lion is still a mountain lion and will eat you, and a murderer is still a murderer and will murder you. One may even argue that determinism makes for a greater moral character. Let me explain why. With a determinate view, we understand that criminals are simply unlucky to have been born with the mind of and raised surrounded by circumstances which have led to their becoming a criminal. With this understanding, we may remove any justification for hate or vengeance and become more compassionate to those unlucky enough to have been born and developed into something which cannot coexist with a society which surrounds them. We can truly forgive those who have wronged us, and in doing so, focus more clearly on what would truly benefit society. Things such as mitigating harm, risk assessment, deterring crime, and ultimately human well-being. In addition, we might finally come to forgive ourselves for what wrongs we have committed, either to ourselves or against others. All of this may initially sound absurd and would be extremely difficult if it is you or a loved one that is the victim of these individuals. Though I do believe we should not make decisions in such a passionate state, it is for this very reason why we don't allow the family to prosecute the individual who has done them wrong. Instead, when our minds are clear and dispassionate, this is the place from which public policy should arise. Our second common objection arises out of, in my opinion, the confusion between fatalism and determinism. The concern being that if there is no free will, then why do or strive for anything? Why not just wait around for things to take place? This is ultimately a concern regarding choice or lack thereof. The proposed answer to this objection may seem paradoxical at first, but stick with me, and I hope that it will become clear enough. It is because, even while lacking free will, our choices matter, because they are in fact what causes our conscious actions, and regardless of if our actions are determined by prior causes, they continue to play a key role in our and others' lives. This fact is likely uncomfortable, but self-evident. Let us look a bit closer at the nature of choice and consciousness. Like most everything dealing with difficult subjects, I think an example will help to ascertain a starting point from which we can then clarify further. Say that I am tasked with choosing any fictional character that I want. Let's choose Siegfried, the hero of the Nibelungalee. Now, let's ask ourselves a question. Why did we not choose Gilgamesh, the ancient king of Uruk? To understand this, let's look to what happens when we are initially directed to complete this task. When we are given this task, I am sure that a myriad of fictional characters arrived on the margins of your consciousness. My point here is that we have no control over which will arrive. To have control over this would require us to think about them before we thought about them, and this is absurd. We simply cannot pick which fictional character before it picks itself. Even if we could repeat this task over and over again without the knowledge of our previous attempts, we would still fail to choose Gilgamesh over and over again. This example shows, I hope clearly enough, that we are but the witnesses of our choices. With each decision there lies an underlying mystery from which these very decisions spring forth. And without the power to control our next thought, or to prevent it from occurring, our will is not, in my estimation, free. I have thoroughly enjoyed researching and contemplating this topic, but I would like to state a few more important things before closing out this video. First, I am continuing to develop my own views on this subject. Whether or not these views which have been stated here are final, I cannot say. But I am looking forward to understanding where you stand regarding this subject. So be sure to comment so that myself and others can broaden our own perspective regarding the eternal war between determinism and free will. Second, I am not completely convinced that all would be better off believing as I do and do not consider it part of my task to overcome them. Perhaps burning down another's house without any satisfactory dwelling to give them as recompense is unwise and dangerous to one's personal well-being. And lastly, I would like to thank all of you who have made the effort to actively listen and understand as far as is possible to what I have to say. If you find topics such as these intriguing, then I would be more than willing to expand on it in future videos. And as always, thank you for talking philosophy with me. Until next time.