I am simply saying that no given state of affairs, e.g. law, determines persons to act; nor do persons, nor can persons, determine themselves to act due to law. It is only out of the fear of serious punishment that persons do nothing of what is putatively prohibited by law.

Yes, precisely.

I am centrally addressing foibles of criminal law and punishment. Although no law is actually validly determinative of human behavior, constitutional/civil rights law is uplifting, and not subject to indictment.

Ciceroianus,
You, striving to validly designate something given as determinative of conduct, asked: "Is the weather determinative of human conduct? '' I decently explained why weather cannot be determinative of conduct. Hence, you situated me in an absurd situation. I was kind to you and politely answered you. Now, you unkindly radically insult me, by accusing me of uninteresting pronouncement, in response to your inane question.

In so far as it is mistaken to claim to punish on the basis of law, which law is not in fact determinative of human conduct, it is unintentionally immoral, and simply ignorant, to ascribe one's acts of punishment to said law.
No, not a prison abolitionist...
I wholly agree with your: "'We can lock people in prison for societies safety even without invoking a legal or moral framework just as a form of self defence."

The position that consciousness is nothingness is constructed by Sartre in his "Being and Nothingness"
1943; built upon Spinoza's "determinatio negatio est" and Hegel's "Omnis determinatio est negatio."; and having no connect with me.
Law can be transcended by attainment of personal reflective comprehension of how one's ontological freedom functions as nihilation.

Indeed we humans stand within the physis, unto the outermost extent thereof. We are integral with, not neccessarily "related" to the physis, for:

Any attempt to posit 'relation' between a human and the physis, encounters the theoretical unintelligibility that is infinite regress, i.e., to posit relation R between A (Human) and B (Physis), requires positing a further relation between the original relation R and A, and so on again for B and its relation to the original R, and on and on... (F.H. Bradley, "Appearance and Reality", 1897).

The notion 'Cause' comes into the world via human consciousness, and, is a human theoretical construct not necessarily intelligibly contained in the world (Bradley). Law, a given, does not, cannot, move consciousness to do or not do X. Consciousness is nothingness and, functions strictly in terms of nothingnesses, and, not in terms of and via somethings like law.

[reply="Ciceronianus;808373"
Only individual human beings are determinative of individual human conduct.

At this point in human history most humans hold a scientistic view that their existence consists as matter causally in motion moved by external forces, e.g., that law causally moves persons to act and/or refrain from action. Which materialist scientistic view of action origination wholly fails to comprehend that human freedom is a constant self-movent thrust unto a not yet future.

Weather is wholly concrete physical substance which exists as entirely equivalent to itself; whereas a human being never coincides with itself, being always elsewhere, projected out unto a not yet, intended, future. Persons freely choose responses to given weather, weather does not choose human responses.

It is, ultimately, not merely incorrect to deem law to be determinative of human conduct, it is delusional.

Correct.

Simple pure opinion has no meaning, no weight inside a debate. We do indeed have explanation of how behavior arises; I have provided specific reference thereto. None of us are or can be causally determined to act by what is; it is via what is not yet accomplished that we act. My post did not cause you to respond thereto; your personal freedom chose to provide us with your opinion. You are not a being who's intellect is in motion moved by something other than yourself; you are freedom and actually cannot be determined to act by what is. It is always by what is not that you act...Your consciousness felt a need to respond to my language; my language is not your mover, your being is.

The change which I suggest is that our big shot doctors of jurisprudence, who currently act so high and mighty toward everyone else via their "law", seriously study the concept "determinatio est negatio",as it is highly developed in Part Four of Sartre's "Being and Nothingness" entitled
"Freedom", where an existential ontological description of how human action upsurges is given.

I do not at all comprehend your question.

Yes
The central fact which disconcerts me is how so many police persons are so totally taken with themselves and their position, that they condescend to mistreat others, who are free beings, as subjugate slaves.

Again, Benj96, an exceeding uplifting and pleasing series of rich reflections.

A beautifully insightful and encouraging series of observations regarding the law Benj96.

Your honesty is totally commendable.

The law is a primary determinant of human conduct according to our legalistic society, NOT according to me and my understanding of how a human act originates. It is not actually possible for given law to be determinative of a human act.

Thank you.
Why do you disagree?

No, I, a person wrote the position.

"Time'' as something allegedly contained by the cosmos is purely a theoretical construct set forth by humans, who are, thereby, simply projecting the structure of their own consciousness onto the physis/cosmos. Our consciousness is a constant engagement in what is not yet accomplished ,i.e., future. As consciousnesses perpetually pursuing our future, we each perceive a present passing into past. Time is a strictly human milieu limited to the parameters of consciousness and, the cosmos only contains time in so far as it contains us. Time has no being-in-itself which stands independent of human consciousness, which consciousness is the author and the locus of time. We derived number via our conscious awareness of our own structure as engaged in future/present/past, 1 2 3...Hence, time is only real as and existent as human consciousness.