We’re all products of our environment, but I would like to think we have some influence in our decision making because if we don’t then can we really condemn people for their wrongdoings? I mean if they were basically doomed from the start then they never really stood a chance.
Think of it this way.
Do we hold a rabid dog "personally responsible" for their dangerous behavior?
Does this lack of "personal responsibility" keep us from restraining the rabid animal in order to protect society at large?
Does a rabid dog "deserve" to be tortured and berated for their actions?
Here's another example.
If a gear fails in an engine, causing the engine to malfunction, do we hold the failed gear "personally responsible"?
Do we punish the gear? Do we torture the gear?
NO. We remove the damaged gear and either repair or replace the troublesome gear.
Removing "moral" implications only makes us MORE HUMANE AND PRACTICAL.
Second, an event free of cause does not mean it is necessarily free of effect.
(IFF) an action or event is uncaused (100% free of HISTORICAL cause and effect) (THEN) it must necessarily be INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM RANDOM
Third, "random" is not necessarily related to cause. You have shown no correlative relationship between the two.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines "random" as "Having no definite aim or purpose; not sent or guided in a particular direction; made, done, occurring, etc., without method or conscious choice; haphazard." [POST#25]
"without method or conscious choice"
By this definition, every action taken by an animal (lacking a pre-frontal cortex) is RANDOM.
By this definition, every event, geological and or meteorological, is RANDOM.
By this definition, the movements of every plant and every insect and every bacterium are RANDOM.
(IFF) this is truly your preferred definition of RANDOM (THEN) please explain to me what word you would use to describe something that is epistemologically and fundamentally UNPREDICTABLE.
Observe this experiment: Say we tell you to chose the red, or the blue pill, and you freely chose the blue pill, not knowing that there was no red pill. We used a hologram to fool you.
This example is the very definition of surreptitious COERCION.
This example is the very definition of a FALSE CHOICE.
Try this example.
Someone puts a loaded gun to your head and tells you to murder one of your family members with a knife, or else they'll shoot you.
This is obviously COERCION.
bUT, does the loaded gun magically strip you of your "ability to make a choice"?
NO.
The coercion "works" precisely because humans will PREDICTABLY choose to save their own skins.
ANd people are quick to feel guilt for their "choices" even when those "choices" are obviously COERCED (deflecting guilt from their oppressors).
This makes the "forced choice" (false choice) an extremely effective tool for CON-ARTISTS and MOBSTERS.
Someone's "decision" to "choose the blue pill" is highly constrained. Is the subject free to walk away and choose neither the red nor blue pills? Has the subject been contaminated with any enticements or vague threats regarding their choice? Does the subject have a natural attraction or repulsion to pills in general? Has the subject acquired a natural preference for one of these colors over the other? Is the subject seeking your personal approval and thus more sensitive to your overall tone and body-language?
All of these are just a glimpse into the complex chain of (conscious and subconscious) events that lead you to your "choice".
They are not fundamentally intractable. They are not epistemologically unknowable. They are not ultimately unpredictable.
Click to watch 3 minutes,
Perhaps anarchy already exists and "THE COMMUNITY" is merely the highest manifestation of organized crime. – special thanks to 
@thoughts-in-time
Essential HIVE links,
https://hive.vote/
https://beeme.icu/?account=logiczombie
https://hiveblocks.com/@logiczombie
Copyright notice: Feel free to copy and paste any LOGICZOMBIE original content (posts and or comments and or replies and logiczombie logo, excluding quoted 3rd party content of course) according to copyleft principles (creative commons zero).
+proHUMAN +proFAMILY
Your scathing critique is requested.