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, 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 [[Objectivity|objective]] standard of [[truth]]. This is apart from intent. The effect, good or bad, may not be what was intended. It was accidental.  

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 [[Objectivity|objective]] standard of [[truth]]. This is apart from intent. The effect, good or bad, may not be what was intended. It was accidental. The [[Catholic Church]] teaches that actions ''of themselves'' are intrinsically either good or evil even if they are not perceived to be so. Compare [[Subjectivism]].

Some people deny free will but still claim that punishment is necessary to [[Deterrence|deter]] harmful behaviour and protect the community, predicated on the idea that human beings are [[Motivation|motivated]] by a [[health]]y [[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|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 [[anarchism]] and [[antinomianism]] under the guise of true [[liberty]] and [[freedom]] of the will.

Some people deny free will but still claim that punishment is necessary to [[Deterrence|deter]] harmful behaviour and protect the community, predicated on the idea that human beings are [[Motivation|motivated]] by a [[health]]y [[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|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 [[anarchism]] and [[antinomianism]] under the guise of true [[liberty]] and [[freedom]] of the will.