Free Will Versus Determinism Debate and Implications on Morality

The “Free Will” vs. “Determinism” debate has implications on morality. Even within the Christian tradition, the debate between Arminianism and Pre-Destination Calvinists has been an ongoing debate.

Individualism, separate consciousness, and concepts of the “ego” are additional implications of this debate. Life, Liberty, and Personal Property seem to be predicated on “Free Will.”

As I’ve come to understand the influence childhood trauma and mental illness has on the actions and thought patterns of my own self and my loved ones, in addition to dealing with the psychological, fallacious thinking of others in terms of objective reality screaming in their face, I’ve become less and less willing to attempt to “change” people’s minds. What’s the point if the individual really doesn’t have much “free will” to actually change their thought patterns?

If a psychopath is not morally responsible for a mass murder due to a physical brain tumor rendering him incapable of restraining his impulses, then to what degree can an individual be held responsible for the indoctrination they received through Public School?

To what degree can a Bernie Sander’s supporter be blamed for dehumanizing “Capitalists” in order to internally, and morally justify their envy and theft? Their minds already are set to steal from and punish those who have more than them, and then they develop a mental construct in their mind to morally justify such actions. This concept of “dehumanization” can also be applied to Neo-Cons advocating for the murder of innocents in the Middle East and shrugging it off as, “Collateral Damage” or “those people.” But the root of dehumanizing attempts is to apply morality to entire groups of people, rather than toward individuals.

Within Christianity I see parallels within the concept of “hard hearts.” God has already chosen the “select” for which would become receptive toward the Gospel, or would turn away from it. If the infinite riches of God’s love is not enough to turn hearts (assuming if this is true), who am I to somehow believe that those who support initiating violence on other individuals can be swayed with the mere use of reason?

How does a victim appeal to the victimizer from initiating violence to take what they want? If Reason was not the original motivator, then why would I think Reason would have any effect?

But once again, the concepts of the “Non-Aggression principle” seem to be predicated on this notion of “free will?” Or is it?

I’ll have to consider this further.