Causality and Freedom in human behavior

In a political online discussion the other day, I saw someone make an argument in support of the establishment of labor protections (minimum wages, anti child-labor statues) as an anti-crime initiative. The most reduced expression of his argument was that sufficient levels of hunger necessarily lead humans to petty crime.

It got me thinking about the causes of human behavior. I like to believe that humans have a space of freedom in which to determine our actions; we are not automatic creatures. The case of persons who use hunger strikes as a form of protest argue for my sentiment.

And the second thrust of my inquiry has become, when a people set their laws should they do so based on their hopes for human potential, or their fears for human failing? I appreciate warning everyone with a law that thievery will not be tolerated, but (under my fellow arguer’s specific motivations) ought a people bribe each other to follow laws?

*** fair notice *** I am not arguing against basic labor protections. It just struck me that this particular framing of an argument in support of them fails to account for the general magnificence of the human spirit, which makes it a poor argument, even in the political arena.

Help me figure this out?

If there is a statistical relationship between labor protections (or welfare in general) and crime rate then it sounds like a good argument. When I watch/read how economical decisions are made, I’m always surprised how far away arguments are from the life of individual person. Only stats, graphs and numbers. I’m not expert, however I suspect that this approach works. Its like controlling weather. If its warm, it is more probable that people will go out. Similarly, if there are better job opportunities and conditions, it is less likely that people will turn to crime (if this is the case in reality). And the control of “economical environment” is a job of government etc. Rest of the story - individual decisions are up to individual people.

As for human potential - I grow up in Poland and since I was a little child I was taught about II world war (and saw lots of documentaries and movies on TV). So when I think about human potential and magnificence I see both concentration camps when people were burned by thousands and also I see people who in those camps helped each other and showed spirit of sacrifice, calm and kindness. So I guess we should address (in law and other structures) both aspects of our nature - both great darkness and great light we are carrying within.

Quote from one of my favorite writers:

Humans are free to be and do whatever they want. Nothing is determining this. Yes, there are powerful influences which condition our judgements, but they are influences only, not determinants.

Only if they choose to alter what they want based on their circumstances, or set their goals low enough to begin with.

[QUOTE=Techne;32427]In a political online discussion the other day, I saw someone make an argument in support of the establishment of labor protections (minimum wages, anti child-labor statues) as an anti-crime initiative. The most reduced expression of his argument was that sufficient levels of hunger necessarily lead humans to petty crime.

It got me thinking about the causes of human behavior. I like to believe that humans have a space of freedom in which to determine our actions; we are not automatic creatures. The case of persons who use hunger strikes as a form of protest argue for my sentiment.

And the second thrust of my inquiry has become, when a people set their laws should they do so based on their hopes for human potential, or their fears for human failing? I appreciate warning everyone with a law that thievery will not be tolerated, but (under my fellow arguer’s specific motivations) ought a people bribe each other to follow laws?

*** fair notice *** I am not arguing against basic labor protections. It just struck me that this particular framing of an argument in support of them fails to account for the general magnificence of the human spirit, which makes it a poor argument, even in the political arena.

Help me figure this out?[/QUOTE]

Hello:

I think, if a country believes itself to be a Welfare State, its establishment would like to have such laws for not-so-large-hearted businesses, driven by the sole need to maximise profits and increase market share.

However it is declared in the scriptures that Almighty first made necessary provision for all (support system) and only then, proceeded with the creation of creatures.

What is probably needed is a spiritual awakening in more and more people leading to proper and in depth understanding of the [B]Doctrine of Karma[/B], which would help unravel the cause of poverty, crime and other negativities facing us, in spite of all creature comforts.

Regards, Anand

Techne,

“It got me thinking about the causes of human behavior. I like to believe that humans have a space of freedom in which to determine our actions; we are not automatic creatures.”

Drop your likes and dislikes, as well as your beliefs - they are casting a veil over one’s eyes.

It all depends on whether one is living out of consciousness or unconsciousness. It should not be assumed and taken for granted that a human being is free in one’s experience, freedom is a state which only very rarely any human being has ever come into contact with. And the reason for it is that man’s system is a by product of thousands of years of evolution. While different minds and bodies may express themselves differently, their basic workings are more or less the same. Unless one comes to more awareness as to one’s own inner workings, man is just a computer, a program working according to whatever has been written on it. There is not even a single thought or emotion which is one’s own - all of the content of one’s mind has been gathered from the outside. And every action that one does is already determined by so many forces in the cosmos which are beyond one’s control, so there is really no question of free will. Even something as simple as the process of breathing, is not something which is within one’s control - although perhaps there are those who are practicing pranayam who may believe it to be the case. If you are not even in control of the very source of one’s existence which is one and the same as existence itself, there is no question of being in control of anything else that arises in one’s experience. Everything is being orchestrated by a dimension which is far more fundamental than what one ordinarily experiences, although it is not separate from ordinary experience.

But, man does have the ability to choose, and choice is something which is entirely differnet than free will. Although, human beings like to feel as though they have free will simply because nobody wants to feel as though they are drifting powerlessly in a universe which does not care for their being. When a human being feels helpless, great fear arises - and the tragedy is that it is only through being absolutely helpless that there is a possibility of surrender.

But although man does not possess free will, that does not mean that there is no such thing as freedom. Freedom is one’s very nature, one’s true self has always been from first to last birthless and deathless. Only it has nothing to do with your own conscious will, it is the very will of existence itself, impersonal. The very idea of will implies resistence, it implies limitation. You have to channel your intention and energy in a certain direction to acheive a certain outcome. That is what most people are calling “free will” - it is consciously making an effort to acheive a certain desire. Because it is consciously chosen, one assumes that this is freedom. That is not what freedom is, freedom is such - that there is absolutely no trace of choice in it. It is only a state of being which becomes revealed once one comes to know of that which is choiceless, once the method disappears into the methodless. And although man does not have free will, he can live as though he does have free will, and use this illusion as a means towards coming to his awakening. If one starts clinging to the other extreme, that there is no free will, one may simply use it as an excuse to become a vegetable, vegetate, and fall into passivity. The work of awakening requires your active involvement - and in this very moment one has all of the necessary intelligence to start inquiring into oneself.