The Deterministic Framework concludes that determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature.
An elegant quote by Arthur Schopenhauer perfectly captures this concept:
Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.
So, in the case of Evil, one does evil when he believes that this will bring him pleasure.
For example, a man robbing a bank(Evil) believes that this will bring him money(pleasure) so he can avoid starving and live comfortably(Inferable pain).
Another example could be, a serial killer(Evil) who believes killing(pleasure) to be satisfying, but it’s very likely for them to have some sort of psychological disorder and from this point of view their actions are determined by their lack of control over their mind. But another point of view could be, them having control over their mind but having a misguided perception of pleasure and not fully taking into account their inferable pain(e.g prison or death).
In both examples, the need for maximising pleasure drives them to commit immoral acts, which are defined by what is conducive to society and what isn’t.
PLEASURE is fundamental to everything that we do. We cannot choose to not feel pleasure. Therefore we are either right or wrong in our perception of pleasure to the consequent action. If one can show that a particular action won't lead to pleasure for the individual they can fundamentally change their consequent actions and their definition of pleasure. The maximisation of pleasure is achieved only in “Free” societies where the individual has a purpose.
Morals are objectively defined by societal subjectivity. Objectivity in this sense is referring to a “concept of being true independently from individual subjectivity caused by perception, emotions, or imagination. A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.” With this definition, it is clear to see that morality can’t be objective.
Looking at morals from a societal standpoint gives it more power with regards to the extent of the effect and can be verified and measured. For example, an individual not getting out of bed and watching tv all-day can be characterised as good(or even moral an act) for the individual as it brings them pleasure.
But those resources aren’t free and if this scenario extends out to the larger population it’s clear to see how it can be bad(or Immoral) and can lead to the destruction of the whole society and it is only objectively bad when it leads to the destruction of society.
For the individual, their unproductivity is negligible. But for society, their unproductivity can lead to unnecessary suffering.
Under the deterministic framework where actions are characterised in terms of pleasure or pain. Our choice of pleasure or pain is non-negotiable but our association with pleasure and pain can be viewed to be on a societal level, which leads to objective morality. This morality can be instilled into society such that, the maximisation of pleasure is achieved when the morals of the individual match the morals of society.
For example, murder on the individual level IS NOT WRONG whilst murder on the societal level IS WRONG. As we’re part of a society we can objectively say that murder IS WRONG.
Therefore, the individual must understand that when viewing their actions as moral or immoral they should seek an eagle-eye view of the society they partake in and judge their actions on such basis and decide on each action’s conduciveness to society. This way evil cannot be produced as the actions of the individual are right on every aspect. They bring maximal pleasure to themselves and to the society they partake in.
