We've had discussions about free will on this forum. The flow of the discussions tended to head toward considering some sort of determinism that isn't incompatible with free will.. a sort of "have your cake and eat it too" sort of thing.

I wouldn't call myself a determinist, but I'm aware of a determinist perspective that I use to understand events. Other times, I use a free will perspective. I think either side, taken to the extreme leads to meaninglessness. But yea: within the determinist perspective in the purist sense, there's no morality because no one can take responsibility for his actions. This ends up being part of morality in a convoluted way. When we think about why some one does wrong, we look at the events leading up to it...why it was inevitable. This is part of making sense of our own actions, to learn from experience, and it also puts us in the position to have compassion for those who do wrongly... knowing that we ourselves have failed.

Compatibilism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Utilitarians are largely determinists. Of course, they are also compatibilists, and believe that determinism is compatible with freedom of the will. I do too.

I think I look at this a little differently than most people.

I believe there are ethical determinists but first I need to define what I call a determinist.

To me, there is one underline fundamental truth to human behavior. It is the same for every single human, without a single one left out. You can argue and disagree with me, doesn't really matter because to some degree it is true regardless of the rebuttal claim. What is that truth? Everyone wants to be content. Not necessarily happy, but instead, content. They want to be free from worries, suffering, anxiety, ect. They just want to feel content with the world, and with their life. Some want more but basically all actions, EVERYTHING is to obtain this contentment in some form.

Some people use rational choices to obtain small amounts of contentment while others take bigger risks for more contentment. Some use under minded tactics like manipulation or lying to get some contentment. Ultimately there is no actual best way to obtain contentment and that is why we create problems, because there is no best solution despite what some will try to claim. There is a cost involved with contentment, some will pay the price while others will try to steal their way or bargain their way into it. You know who you are.

There is not a single person living that does not strive for it. Even though some might find contentment in misery, they still ultimately strive for that contentment. Some will try to argue that what I state is pure materialism and that there is no spiritual truth to my claim, but they are just in denial that they are trying to use a spiritual belief to obtain contentment from. Most who deny this fundamental truth are afraid of being pinned down, to reveal that all effort is for something so simple yet difficult to obtain.

So how does this relate to determinism? Because ultimately our actions are dictated by obtaining some form of contentment. If you are a little content you tend to pull back, you might even find yourself having bouts of compassion or giving when you are feeling moments of contentment. However; they don't typically last for very long, some can last longer than others but for the most part they do not last. Things change and that causes you to struggle for another method to get another fix. All behavior can be reduced to this one goal. Weather it is positive, or negative all actions have this one goal as their motivation.

This is where the ethical determinists come into consideration. They actually take into account what they think is a more positive method to obtain contentment. They weigh the impact their actions will have on those around them. If the cost of suffering is too high, they will refrain from those tactics. If the cost is less they will more than likely try to utilize these when possible. However; there is never a full proof method that causes no grief. If there was, this would be easily marketed or become the ultimate law, but we don't have such a thing, because it doesn't exist.

So Kennethamy, were Bentham and Mill determinists?

To everyone: I am so thankful for you taking the time and answering my question.

Mill was. Not sure about Bentam, but I suppose he was.

May I ask in what way utilitarianism and determinism can go hand in hand?

I did not quite say that. I said that there is no reason why a utilitarian cannot be a determinist. If the issue is that of free will, then, as I said, most utilitarians do not think that determinism is incompatible with free will. Think of it this way: the utilitarian theory of punishment implies that punishment is justified because it is a deterrence. The utilitarian would not punish a kleptomaniac since it would not deter the kleptomaniac and do no good. The kleptomaniac cannot help stealing, so punishment is useless. But, on the other hand, thieves are punished for stealing. Why is that? Because it is believed that punishment will deter stealing, since thieves are not compelled to steal, and can help themselves. So the threat of punishment is a deterrence. Thieves have free will, kleptomaniacs do not. So utilitarians really have to believe in free will. Otherwise, why would they believe we should punish thieves, but not punish kleptomaniacs?