NOTE : this article is in response to the previous article in this issue of Commensal by Anthony Owens.
"I would like to ask Roger one question however. Why should we treat with more compassion those born by determinism to offend society ? Wouldn't it make more sense to just have them put down ? What is compassion and why should it be shown to an automaton?
I refuse to reply directly to the author of those chilling Nazi remarks and address the general reader.
The arguments for determinism apply to everyone and not just to those who offend society. Indeed, offenders are often socially excluded and punished as though their actions had not been determined. But as everyone is equally determined we must feel compassion for those selected to suffer for their behaviour. It is right to punish this behaviour in order to regulate society and right also to feel compassion for the suffering of the punished.
The question: "What is compassion ?" was addressed at this year's Braziers conference and is printed below in this edition of Commensal as "What is man For?" (note especially "I was in prison and you visited me").
I notice that neither in Commensal nor on its website has there been an argument to support free will. This reflects the general position in philosophical circles. Though the arguments for total determinism of human actions seem impregnable there is surely no reason whatsoever to accept the physical determination of thoughts. No confirming observation could be made so this parallel theory of human determinism is based on unfounded speculation.
However, perhaps there is one Commensal reader who at one moment in life has performed an act which was not determined by motives that derive from past experience which can no longer be altered or by a present event we cannot control and cannot be altered. So here is a challenge to you. Describe this act in a way that shows it was not determined by what was unalterable in the past or then present and was freely chosen.
Roger Farnworth