Free will versus determinism

[peacegirl]

But it does demand conformity. It demands that nobody ever blames anybody. If that is not conformity, I wonder what it is. Having free expression requires having the freedom to blame someone else right?

Of course, having freedom of expression means an individual can say whatever he wants, or do whatever he wants, but in order to have true freedom of expression we must create a world in which no one wants to hurt another in his words or his actions, or those behaviors will be restricted for good reason. Until this new world becomes a reality we will continue to need the laws that are in existence, politicians, police, government, and all those agencies that help to keep order. You don't have to become a citizen of this new world if you don't want to. You could keep living in the world we have now if you want this, but why would you want this if you could have greater freedom than you have now? Remember, no one is forcing you to do anything you don't want to do. You will be the one to decide what is better for you, no one else, and that is basically the theme of the rest of the book. It just extends into all areas of human relations to show how a world of no blame is so much better than the world we live in now; a world of judgment, blame, and punishment.

I don't consider an agreement conforming to anything. I think of a conformist as someone who does certain things because it gets a positive response from others.

Any invariable law should not require three pages of imaginary conversation to get across.

This invariable law can be stated in a few sentences, but it would need clarification. I hope you can see how difficult this discussion is when everyone has a definition of determinism that is not what the author is proposing. That's why people are coming to all kinds of wrong conclusions. If we don't have any understanding of how we are defining our words, then there is bound to be confusion.

 

[gopher]

''I can't walk through a mountain. But I can decide to climb it, surround it, or dig through it.''

Free will means you can do anything by choice.

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl, the edit button is at the top right part of the post you did. But it disappears after a while.

Thanks, I'll look for it again.

Why not? That would mean you have a perfectly good understanding of why one becomes a pedophile. Do you? It seems to me that there is something unrealistic about the claim that all causes that lead someone to do evil acts would disappear... Because of what? The absence of any kind of blame?

I understand that it seems unrealistic that all the causes of evil would disappear. That is why for right now, instead of focusing on whether this knowledge can change the worst element in society, let's step back a minute to understand more clearly what this law states. You gave me a pretty good synopsis but we need to continue discussing why responsibility goes up, not down, with the removal of all blame and judgment. Not everybody gets this, and since you are the most active participant, I hope we can continue the conversation in a way that will allow others to follow the reasoning.

This all sounds beautiful and great. I'd love to live in that world he speaks of. But he doesn't explain how this world can realistically come to be. Let's say you magically managed to brainwash every single human into not blaming everybody, I still don't see how this stops pedophiles to lust after children, or rapists to want to rape.

First of all, the things that exist in today's world will not exist in the new world because children will be brought up so differently. They would never grow up to desire these things. I know that this is not a complete answer, but for our purposes right now we can't jump so far ahead of ourselves that these principles will appear impotent in the face of such atrocities.

I did read the last part of chapter 2. He elaborates on what would go on in the mind of someone who wants to hurt someone else and concludes he would not end up hurting the person because of the ''no blame'' principles that are universally applied.

Yes, that is true, but there are other factors involved. He writes in the economic chapter, which you have not yet gotten to:

Thus far we have arrived at the prerequisite steps that must be taken for there to be a permanent solution. Remember that we are working this problem backwards and until other facts are revealed we still have a distance to go, so please bear with me. There is one key point which needs clarification. Preventing war and crime by removing all advance blame does not necessarily remove the factors that made in the world of free will those evils the preferable alternative, so there are other factors to consider before these principles will work. In our present world innumerable wars, revolutions, and crimes were a reaction to various forms of hurt that did not allow any alternative but to retaliate as a reaction to injustices inflicted on them. In other words, when those about to fight back discover that they will no more be retaliated upon, it is also necessary for them to realize that the factors responsible for this consideration of war, as the lesser of two evils, must also be removed; and are they given any choice but to remove these factors when they know that the people they have been hurting will never blame them for this?

Don't get me wrong, I am all for making this world a better place, and I am for any kind of moral/ethical/philosophical system that can get us there. The author seems to think that his system can get us there and I'm willing to go along the ride. But I will bring along my criticism with it. And if the author happens to be right, then hopefully criticism can help improve the theory because so far, I don't see it as being very convincing, and believe me, I am open minded.

I have no problem with questions you may have. I welcome people who keep an open mind and try to understand. If you are not convinced, that's fine. I will try to help clarify things. The only thing I can't tolerate is people telling me he was arrogant and a crackpot. He was a very humble man who had unusual analytical ability.

What fails to convince the most is how the causes that lead one to evil would disappear in a blameless environment.

That's perfectly understandable. The rest of the book, although just a blueprint of this new world, shows how these principles change every area of human relation so that the causes that have led people to desire hurting others, will be entirely eliminated.

''I can't walk through a mountain. But I can decide to climb it, surround it, or dig through it.''

Free will means you can do anything by choice.

The author is not arguing the fact that people can choose. But their choices, once they make them, could not have been otherwise since any other choice, at that moment, would have given less satisfaction under the circumstances. We can only choose that which gives us greater satisfaction, not less satisfaction, at each and every moment of time, which is why man's will is not free.

 

[JLM]

''I can't walk through a mountain. But I can decide to climb it, surround it, or dig through it.''

Free will means you can do anything by choice.

This may be kind of a non issue. There are things that our in our power to make happen and there are things we are not able to make happen and there are other things that are eventually going to happen, if we keep doing certain things long enough. For instance if you are going to skate on the ice, eventually if done long enough you are going to slip and fall. :smile:

 

[s_lone]

The author is not arguing the fact that people can choose. But their choices, once they make them, could not have been otherwise since any other choice, at that moment, would have given less satisfaction under the circumstances. We can only choose that which gives us greater satisfaction, not less satisfaction, at each and every moment of time, which is why man's will is not free.

Good morning Peacegirl, thanks for your response. As long you keep giving me your feedback, I'm willing to keep going, so long as we both understand that we have other things to do. I can't get into chapter 4 until tomorrow.

But for the time being. I have this rather simple but potentially devastating question for you.

Why even bother?

If we go along the author's reasoning that our will is not free, aren't we forced to admit that whatever we do won't change the outcome of what will happen? Why put so much effort in thinking and writing about these things if it can't change anything? I understand the author wrote all of this because it's probably what gave him ''the most satisfaction''. But why should anyone care about what he has to say if in the end, our will isn't free and nothing we can possibly do will change the outcome of what will happen?

If no one is interested in the book in question, you can't blame anybody can you? That would be rather dishonest of you right?

His version of determinism is as fatalistic as any other that I've encountered. All I am is a ''thinking'' machine which necessarily follows the guideline to ''always choose what brings me the most satisfaction''. What's the difference between me and a robot if that's the way things work? A robot could very well have this programmed into its artificial intelligence.

You already said in a previous post that we are not automatons. How is that true in the light of what the author says about the fact that free will does not exist?

 

[peacegirl]

Good morning Peacegirl, thanks for your response. As long you keep giving me your feedback, I'm willing to keep going, so long as we both understand that we have other things to do. I can't get into chapter 4 until tomorrow.

Good morning! I will keep answering as long as you keep questioning and the conversation stays civil, which I'm sure it will. Chapter Four is his second discovery which will open up a huge can of worms, and I don't want to get off on a new tangent just yet. So please feel free to move on s_lone (I'm really happy you have the desire), but let's focus on the first two chapters when talking publicly, because right now these two chapters are most important.

But for the time being. I have this rather simple but potentially devastating question for you.

Why even bother?

If we go along the author's reasoning that our will is not free, aren't we forced to admit that whatever we do won't change the outcome of what will happen? Why put so much effort in thinking and writing about these things if it can't change anything? I understand the author wrote all of this because it's probably what gave him ''the most satisfaction''. But why should anyone care about what he has to say if in the end, our will isn't free and nothing we can possibly do will change the outcome of what will happen?

Because we CAN change the outcome of what will happen, even though our will is not free. This is not a fatalistic point of view. We have the knowledge now of how to create the conditions that will bring peace to the entire world. Once scientists recognize this law of our nature, we can begin to transition from a world of blame and punishment to a world of no blame in which conscience would never permit the atrocities that occur in a free will environment. In today's world, people can easily take advantage of others in order to get what they want because they know they will be blamed and punished if they are caught. This gives them the advance justification to do the very thing threats of punishment have tried to prevent without much success. These atrocities could never take place in the new world. So there is a lot to be excited about once this knowledge gets disseminated across the globe.

If no one is interested in the book in question, you can't blame anybody can you? That would be rather dishonest of you right?

I would never blame anyone, but it would sadden me. If no one is interested, this discovery will still be brought to light because this knowledge is part of the real world, but it may take 100 years instead of 50 years to get recognized. So, yes, it would make me sad if no one is interested, but I would never blame anyone. I will just keep moving forward and try to reach people who are interested.

His version of determinism is as fatalistic as any other that I've encountered. All I am is a ''thinking'' machine which necessarily follows the guideline to ''always choose what brings me the most satisfaction''. What's the difference between me and a robot if that's the way things work? A robot could very well have this programmed into its artificial intelligence.

Because a robot does not have a will. It is programmed to do what it has been instructed to do. Please read the first page in Chapter Three where he says that fatalism implies that we do nothing to change the outcome of a situation. A mother who sees her child running in the street would not say, "Well, it's fate that my child gets hit by a car so I might as well just throw my hands up in surrender and let my child get hit." In other words, we do everything we can to prevent a situation we don't want to occur, and when we've done everything we can possibly do and it still happens, we can then say it was fate ordained.

You already said in a previous post that we are not automatons. How is that true in the light of what the author says about the fact that free will does not exist?

Once again, even though our will is not free because we must pick the choice that gives us greater satisfaction, we are the agents involved in making our choices, therefore we are not robots that just reacting to a program that has already been set up advance.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

"When you know you are not going to be blamed for what you do it also means that you must assume complete responsibility for what you do because you cannot shift it away from yourself under the changed conditions" That is utter nonsense, and lies at the heart of what's wrong with this guy's thinking. If you know you won't be blamed, which I take to mean nobody will hold you to account, for what you do, it means what you do has no possible negative consequences for you, and under those circumstances there's no conceivable motive for wanting to shift it away from yourself. That doesn't make you responsible, it makes you always innocent, nothing's your fault, nothing you do can ever be wrong in anybody else's opinion. That's concentrated essence of BS, and my considered opinion is that Seymour Lessans is an ignorant fool who doesn't understand what he thinks he's writing about. It's immediately obvious that he has no idea what a mathematical or scientific law is or how to state one, because he never does state one in a form any mathematician or scientist would recognize, but repeatedly claims he has. It's just flim flam.

 

[peacegirl]

"When you know you are not going to be blamed for what you do it also means that you must assume complete responsibility for what you do because you cannot shift it away from yourself under the changed conditions" That is utter nonsense, and lies at the heart of what's wrong with this guy's thinking. If you know you won't be blamed, which I take to mean nobody will hold you to account, for what you do, it means what you do has no possible negative consequences for you, and under those circumstances there's no conceivable motive for wanting to shift it away from yourself. That doesn't make you responsible, it makes you always innocent, nothing's your fault, nothing you do can ever be wrong in anybody else's opinion. That's concentrated essence of BS, and my considered opinion is that Seymour Lessans is an ignorant fool who doesn't understand what he thinks he's writing about. It's immediately obvious that he has no idea what a mathematical or scientific law is or how to state one, because he never does state one in a form any mathematician or scientist would recognize, but repeatedly claims he has. It's just flim flam.

You're completely wrong. It just shows how confused a person can get when he doesn't understand. When you know that no one will hold you to account because the world knows that your will is not free, the negative consequences don't come from blame and punishment, it comes from the consequence of not being held responsible for something you know you did, which cannot be justified under the changed conditions. This is the worst possible punishment society can offer. How is it possible for someone to shift that which is his responsibility when no one holds him responsible? You don't even understand the two-sided equation, which is the core of this discovery, for even though the world knows you are not to blame, YOU KNOW YOU ARE TO BLAME. It's not that there's no motive for wanting to shift the blame because you are already innocent from all wrongdoing, you can't shift it, and your conscience cannot accept knowing that you did something to hurt someone without one ounce of justification. The mind needs justification when it comes to hurting another. That's what conscience IS CREATED FOR. Under these conditions, conscience does not grow weaker, it grows much much stronger. I am asking you to stop belitting this author, or I will ignore you next time you post, even if you have something worthwhile to say.

 

[Cliffy]

I'm not disagreeing with you on that free will and determinism are mutually exclusive. I disagree with the notion that free will isn't real past my own imagination. Since I believe free will is God-given it would be something much bigger than chemicals in the brain.

It may be difficult to prove something like morals and free will are absolute, although the argument is there. But I don't have to prove that truth is absolute that's a natural revelation, a priori knowledge.

One man's truth is another man's BS. The truth is only what a person is willing to believe. Facts can be manipulated, just like the bible, to say whatever a person wants it to say (that is why Christianity has 2500 different sects). There are no absolutes except in the mind of a believer. Belief is not truth, it is just a mind game.

 

[JLM]

THAT would just destroy any credibility you have. :smile:

 

[Cliffy]

THAT would just destroy any credibility you have. :smile:

Actually, I think her statement did. Anybody who is so full of themselves as to say to someone (basically) "play by my rules or I will ignore you" hasn't got a foot to stand on. I have seen nothing here to change my mind about free will, just a bunch of mental masturbation.

 

[peacegirl]

One man's truth is another man's BS. The truth is only what a person is willing to believe. Facts can be manipulated, just like the bible, to say whatever a person wants it to say (that is why Christianity has 2500 different sects). There are no absolutes except in the mind of a believer. Belief is not truth, it is just a mind game.

I think you came into this thread late in the game. In the world of judgment, we can manipulate anything to suit our purposes. But this thread describes a new world based on a discovery; a world of no judgment, blame, or punishment. In this world we cannot lie to ourselves or others because we are not given the opportunity to do so. In this world, we are compelled to take full responsibility for our actions without any force whatsoever. If you are interested in learning more, you can go to the book which I posted online for free. All I ask is that you don't skip around. Please read the first three chapter, otherwise you will not understand the rest of the book.

Philosophy | University of Northern Colorado - The Agora (Click on the first thread entitled: New Discovery

Actually, I think her statement did. Anybody who is so full of themselves as to say to someone (basically) "play by my rules or I will ignore you" hasn't got a foot to stand on. I have seen nothing here to change my mind about free will, just a bunch of mental masturbation.

I just happened to read this post Cliff. I am not telling anyone to play by my rules. But I am demanding that I, as well as this author, be respected. I don't disrespect anyone, and I deserve the same respect in return. It's called being civil while discussing a controversial issue. If that bothers you then please don't post here, or you will be ignored as well.

 

[s_lone]

You're completely wrong. It just shows how confused a person can get when he doesn't understand. When you know that no one will hold you to account because the world knows that your will is not free, the negative consequences don't come from blame and punishment, it comes from the consequence of not being held responsible for something you know you did, which cannot be justified under the changed conditions. This is the worst possible punishment society can offer. How is it possible for someone to shift that which is his responsibility when no one holds him responsible? You don't even understand the two-sided equation, which is the core of this discovery, for even though the world knows you are not to blame, YOU KNOW YOU ARE TO BLAME. It's not that there's no motive for wanting to shift the blame because you are already innocent from all wrongdoing, you can't shift it, and your conscience cannot accept knowing that you did something to hurt someone without one ounce of justification. The mind needs justification when it comes to hurting another. That's what conscience IS CREATED FOR. Under these conditions, conscience does not grow weaker, it grows much much stronger. I am asking you to stop belitting this author, or I will ignore you next time you post, even if you have something worthwhile to say.

I will not speak for Dexter Sinister. He can do it better than anybody else. But I do know this about him, he is a man of science, and while he and I have different views on many issues, I certainly can't blame him for saying this is bull**** in the sense that the author does claim that he is being scientific and mathematical.

From my own point of view, the two sided equation must be understood in metaphorical or symbolical terms. I don't have any problem with the expression he chose (two-sided equation) as long as it's clear that's it's simply a figure of speech to describe the double-bind one finds himself into in his explanation of determinism vs. free will.

I'm pretty good at thinking metaphorically so I don't have a problem with the concept of calling it an equation. But there is indeed a problem if the author states it is truly a mathematical equation in the literal sense of the word.

How can you represent the ''two-sided equation'' mathematically?

Like this?

The whole world cannot blame me = I know I am to blame

nah... I don't think so...

Or like this... I think this would be better:

Absence of outside blame = Fullness of inside blame

This isn't bad I think. It demonstrates the author's idea that once you evacuate all possibility of blame by others, all that blame is interiorized inside the soul or heart of the one that caused the ''evil''. The more blame there is on the outside, the less there is on the inside. (At least in theory... I don't see how this is remotely true in real life)

It's an interesting concept. It's a thought provoking reflection on ethics and morality. But is it a mathematical equation? I don't think so because blame and guilt can't be measured in any way. The best we can do is to say we feel guilty, or very guilty, or so terribly guilty we are close to committing suicide.

Blame and guilt are sometimes expressed numerically when a criminal is condemned to x number of years in prison. But that is arbitrary. A different judge could have given the criminal x+y number of years. And with a different jury, the criminal could have been declared innocent!

Now I understand there would be no justice system in the author's No Blame Land, but that doesn't change the fact the morality and math are an uneasy blend.

I think moral concepts come relatively close to mathematical realities in things like the golden rule. With the golden rule, it is true that x number of people are more likely to get along and cooperate if none of them break the rule.

Another interesting rule is ''Tit for Tat'', which has at its fundamental guideline that unless provoked, you shall always cooperate. If provoked, you retaliate. But once retaliation has been done, forgiveness is immediate. It's a sort of civilized ''eye for an eye''.

Tit for tat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The author presents his own rule which is ''Thou shall not Blame''. It's interesting, but it's as much of a mathematical equation than the golden rule or ''tit for tat''. And from what I understand of mathematics, none of these moral guidelines come even close to being a true mathematical equation.

That being said, I'm off to read chapter 4.

 

[karrie]

That's what conscience IS CREATED FOR. Under these conditions, conscience does not grow weaker, it grows much much stronger. I am asking you to stop belitting this author, or I will ignore you next time you post, even if you have something worthwhile to say.

The major flaw in his theory is that science has proven that not everyone HAS a conscience. You can't develop what's not there.

 

[JLM]

The major flaw in his theory is that science has proven that not everyone HAS a conscience. You can't develop what's not there.

And there is one more serious flaw- the poster demanding that the author quit being belittled (criticised). We as readers can take ANY author any way we please. No author necessarily has a hold on the truth or even on sanity for that matter. :smile::smile:

 

[Dexter Sinister]

You're completely wrong. It just shows how confused a person can get when he doesn't understand.

I'm not the one who's confused here. Not being held responsible for something you did means it has no negative consequences for you.

I am asking you to stop belitting this author, or I will ignore you next time you post, even if you have something worthwhile to say.

This guy is obviously more to you than simply a writer whose book you edited. Suit yourself, makes no difference to me, I'll say what I like. He obviously is unaware of the several centuries worth of philosophical debate on this issue by hundreds of better informed and smarter minds than his (without resolution, I might add), he has nothing original to add to it, and has an extremely naive view of human nature. That's why the academy rejected him: he's wrong.

 

[karrie]

And there is one more serious flaw- the poster demanding that the author quit being belittled (criticised). We as readers can take ANY author any way we please. No author necessarily has a hold on the truth or even on sanity for that matter. :smile::smile:

No, but, decency on forums tends to dictate not insulting people's family members. I've pointed out before, this author is most likely a father, grandfather, beloved uncle.... insulting him, rather than his premise, is not likely to be taken well by peacegirl.

 

[JLM]

No, but, decency on forums tends to dictate not insulting people's family members. I've pointed out before, this author is most likely a father, grandfather, beloved uncle.... insulting him, rather than his premise, is not likely to be taken well by peacegirl.

Sorry Karrie, I didn't pick up on that. I usually pay attention to your posts but must have missed that one.

 

[peacegirl]

I will not speak for Dexter Sinister. He can do it better than anybody else. But I do know this about him, he is a man of science, and while he and I have different views on many issues, I certainly can't blame him for saying this is bull**** in the sense that the author does claim that he is being scientific and mathematical.

All he meant by mathematical is undeniable.

For purposes of clarification please note that the words scientific and mathematical only mean undeniable, and are interchanged throughout the text. The reasoning in this work is not a form of logic, nor is it my opinion of the answer; it is mathematical, scientific, and undeniable, and it is not necessary to deal in what has been termed the ‘exact sciences’ in order to be exact and scientific. Consequently, it is imperative to know that this demonstration will be like a game of chess in which every one of your moves will be forced and checkmate inevitable but only if you don’t make up your own rules as to what is true and false which will only delay the very life you want for yourself. The laws of this universe, which include those of our nature, are the rules of the game and the only thing required to win, to bring about this Golden Age that will benefit everyone... is to stick to the rules. But if you decide to move the king like the queen because it does not satisfy you to see a pet belief slipping away or because it irritates your pride to be proven wrong or checkmated, then it is obvious that you are not sincerely concerned with learning the truth but only with retaining your doctrines at all cost.

From my own point of view, the two sided equation must be understood in metaphorical or symbolical terms. I don't have any problem with the expression he chose (two-sided equation) as long as it's clear that's it's simply a figure of speech to describe the double-bind one finds himself into in his explanation of determinism vs. free will.

He was showing that there are two sides in this human equation. We are on one side and the world is on the other. It is definitely a two-sided equation [If you have a better name for it, then use it. He was not a stickler on these things. In fact, he asked people to come forward if they had a better way to explain the discovery].

I'm pretty good at thinking metaphorically so I don't have a problem with the concept of calling it an equation. But there is indeed a problem if the author states it is truly a mathematical equation in the literal sense of the word.

How can you represent the ''two-sided equation'' mathematically?

Like this?

The whole world cannot blame me = I know I am to blame

nah... I don't think so...

Or like this... I think this would be better:

Absence of outside blame = Fullness of inside blame

This isn't bad I think. It demonstrates the author's idea that once you evacuate all possibility of blame by others, all that blame is interiorized inside the soul or heart of the one that caused the ''evil''. The more blame there is on the outside, the less there is on the inside. (At least in theory... I don't see how this is remotely true in real life)

I like that. You are very creative.

It's an interesting concept. It's a thought provoking reflection on ethics and morality. But is it a mathematical equation? I don't think so because blame and guilt can't be measured in any way. The best we can do is to say we feel guilty, or very guilty, or so terribly guilty we are close to committing suicide.

Blame and guilt are sometimes expressed numerically when a criminal is condemned to x number of years in prison. But that is arbitrary. A different judge could have given the criminal x+y number of years. And with a different jury, the criminal could have been declared innocent!

Now I understand there would be no justice system in the author's No Blame Land, but that doesn't change the fact the morality and math are an uneasy blend.

I think moral concepts come relatively close to mathematical realities in things like the golden rule. With the golden rule, it is true that x number of people are more likely to get along and cooperate if none of them break the rule.

Another interesting rule is ''Tit for Tat'', which has at its fundamental guideline that unless provoked, you shall always cooperate. If provoked, you retaliate. But once retaliation has been done, forgiveness is immediate. It's a sort of civilized ''eye for an eye''.

Tit for tat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The author presents his own rule which is ''Thou shall not Blame''. It's interesting, but it's as much of a mathematical equation than the golden rule or ''tit for tat''. And from what I understand of mathematics, none of these moral guidelines come even close to being a true mathematical equation.

That being said, I'm off to read chapter 4.

It is a mathematical equation in the sense that these principles cannot be denied, once they are understood. People can deny anything they want, but that doesn't mean their denial negates the truth, just as I can deny that 2+2=4, but that doesn't negate the truth of this equation. Please let's not get caught up in words. Let's try to understand the concept behind the words.

The major flaw in his theory is that science has proven that not everyone HAS a conscience. You can't develop what's not there.

Yes, it is founded on this concept. Just yesterday there was a t.v. show about criminals errant brain chemistry. But it failed the test when someone who had the same brain chemistry as his uncle (who was a killer) grew up to be a very loving human being. He credited this to being brought up with loving parents, something his uncle did not receive.

And there is one more serious flaw- the poster demanding that the author quit being belittled (criticised). We as readers can take ANY author any way we please. No author necessarily has a hold on the truth or even on sanity for that matter. :smile::smile:

There is a difference between belittling and fair argument. I can accept someone's disagreement based on a rational evaluation, but I cannot tolerate disrespect and I'm sure you can't either. There is a philosophical name for people who attack the person rather of the argument. I forget what it is called.

 

[karrie]

Yes, it is founded on this concept. Just yesterday there was a t.v. show about criminals errant brain chemistry. But it failed the test when someone who had the same brain chemistry as his uncle (who was a killer) grew up to be a very loving human being. He credited this to being brought up with loving parents, something his uncle did not receive.

It didn't fail any test.... the uncle still had no conscience. You can't say that just because one person, if raised perfectly, turns out okay, that everyone will be raised that way and people with no conscience will never exist ever again.