“The verdicts are built on sophistry, censorship, logical fallacies and ignoring to connect the case with causal structures of reality. In court the whole process is about the judge guessing and developing the most probable and verified modell of the past and then applying the law. Causal structures are necessary for this matter.”
Well the whole foundation of the practice of criminal law depends and relies on the illusion of freewill, which essentially makes the whole institution a gigantic farce. But the history of the use of the lie of freewill is far more interesting than examining a few idiot lawyers and judges who try to ease the prosecutorial process by simplifying the nature of causality for a quick win in court. The fact is, few if any of them (save Clarence Darrow) are intelligent enough to understand why and how freewill is not only physically impossible, but conceptually impossible as well, in that there is no way to imagine it being possible in any physical system whatsoever. But, philosophy has no place in a courtroom… so on to the history of the use of the lie of freewill.
Fundamentally, the imposition of guilt upon someone is a strategy used by a person or group who lack the means to physically control and/or manipulate another person or group. It is an attack upon the conscience where brute strength fails. The church, for example, breaks and controls the individual by making him feel guilty, thus making him more manageable. Such a strategy functions at all levels in any civilization; anywhere you find two or more people engaged in a battle of wills, - at home, at work, at school, in public, in the courts, etc. - if there is a dispute about the actions of an individual, the action will be deemed ‘wrong or bad’, and then compounded by the implication of guilt. The individual then losses the thrust and force of his own will, he doubts himself, he regrets, and in this state he is more easily subdued by his opponent.
But this in itself isn’t the ugliest aspect of human intercourse. Hobbesean naturalism/materialism by itself, while perhaps shocking to the weakest of minds, is no argument against the value of human existence. One can always become harder, of course. The ugly thing is that human beings (well most) have no idea what they are doing when they believe in freewill and use it as such a strategy. It would be one thing to know freewill doesn’t exist, but use the idea to deceive when it is useful. At least here you have some degree of competence, and we can say that while this person might be a tyrannical asshole who wants to control, at least he knows what he’s doing. But it is quite another thing to be a tyrannical asshole and an idiot, who genuinely does believe freewill is real.
You might say that the lie has persisted for so long that it has become embedded in human reason, and naturally… or I should say more easily so, because the vast majority of people are as miserable as they are existentially terrified by mortal life and human existence. It comes very quickly and very easily to man to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of causality, partially due too to how is brain works; he’s not predisposed to philosophically analyze the question and nature of the theory of freewill so much as he is immediately and naturally predisposed to use it as a device to his advantage. His concern is not the ‘truth’, but rather to be comfortable and make others less dangerous to him and to those things he holds sacred, through the imposition of guilt.
To put this matter into a cute little irony… it is not that man is a liar (in the case that he knows freewill is an illusion), but that he is so weak he has to lie, and it’s that absence of fortitude and strength that is alarming. The others - those who are both weak and incompetent in matters of the impossibility of freewill - are the general rule and not to be considered. Of course the herd has its institutions and needs them in their little struggles against each other and battles of will… and always has.
Anyway can you imagine how many causes a lawyer or a judge or a jury missed when they take inventory and put their finger on the ‘deciding factor’ of the crime? Lol. For everyone cause they believe they’ve identified, there are ten they did not. But again, it was never about the truth. Only control.
Verily, I conclude my lesson.
p.s. let’s skip the actual arguments against the existence of freewill, since they’re probably a bit too technical for you guys to grasp at this juncture. We can try again in five years maybe.