Changes

==Free will and punishment==

==Free will and punishment==

The error in Hume's assertion regarding randomness excludes the possibility that a randomly free act can be completely moral, even benevolent. Some people deny free will but still claim that punishment is necessary to deter harmful behaviour and protect the community. Such people argue that punishment should be the minimum necessary to deter harmful behavior<ref>See arguments in [[Corporal punishment]]</ref>.

The error in Hume's assertion regarding randomness excludes the possibility that a randomly free act can be completely moral, even benevolent, or completely immoral, even deadly. The act following upon such an undetermined random free choice of the will and its externally operative effect can be evaluated as either intrinsically moral or immoral according to an [[Objectivism|objective]] standard of [[truth]]. This is apart from intent. The effect, good or bad, may not be what was intended. It was accidental.

 

Some people deny free will but still claim that punishment is necessary to deter harmful behaviour and protect the community, predicated on the idea that human beings are motivated by a healthy animal instinct to avoid pain and danger of injury or death, and are rational enough to understand the [[Consequentialism|consequential]] difference between right and wrong behavior and the [[corollary]] concepts of [[good]] and [[evil]]. Such people argue that punishment should be the minimum necessary to deter harmful behavior<ref>See arguments in [[Corporal punishment]]. Compare [[Insanity defense]].</ref>. They are opposed by those who [[Specious reasoning|speciously]] promote the [[Falsehood|false]] [[Libertarianism|libertarian]] philosophies of [[Anarchy|anarchism]] and [[antinomianism]] under the guise of true [[liberty]] and freedom of the will.

==Notes==

==Notes==