[Ixa]

Ixabert, I am not going to delete this thread as it has already genereated discussion with other users. I am inserting the post you made on another thread that I deleted. If you don't think this is appropriate, please feel free to delete it and replace it with something relevant to the thread.

Just as locking people in cells controls the behaviour which
they are otherwise likely to emit, so giving someone a reward
for doing a desirable deed controls his behaviour by
increasing the probability that he will do it again. To change in
whatever way, and to whatever extent, the probability that a
certain behaviour will be emitted in a person is to exercise a
degree of control over him. If a person, therefore, has
received in life a good deal of positive reinforcers for doing
objectionable things, should he not for that reason be free
from blame because he is being controlled? Or at any rate
should the degree to which he is blamed increase or decrease
in proportion as he is being controlled?* We do not punish a
person when conspicuous controls are at work, for example, if
a child is forced with a gun to his head to say naughty things.
The fact that he is being controlled is most apparent, and the
child is therefore exonerated. Yet when inconspicuous controls
are at work when someone does something objectionable, he
is likely to be punished. In spite of the inconspicuousness of
the controls, the person is nevertheless being controlled. Just
because the control is not "obvious" - like a gun to the head
- does not mean that it is not there. His reinforcement history
determines the probability that he will do this or that, that he
will steal or not steal, that he will kill or not kill, and so on.
Perhaps there is an element of "choice" involved in the end,
but the probability that he will "choose" this as opposed to
that is nevertheless predetermined by his reinforcement
history (but can that really be called choice?). Assuming the
veracity of the doctrine of the liberty of the will, the child with
the gun to his head is still capable of "choosing" to disobey:
yet he is still free from blame, and is therefore not punished,
because conspicuous controls are at work. Should it be any
different when the controls are inconspicuous, but assert
themselves all the more surely?

*However, I contend that the degree to which a person is
controlled is such that there is no room for any sort of "free
will". This, however, is not essential to my argument.

[Maxim Litvinov]

Maxim says that he thinks similarly.

Do you believe in isolation/segregation of those that are a danger to society though?

[Ixa]

Maxim says that he thinks similarly.

Good. I was confused at first. I did not not know if you were saying this
as Goldstein or Maxim.

Do you believe in isolation/segregation of those that are a danger to society though?

Yes.

[Todd D.]

People are not responsible for misbehaving.

Right there you lost me. People are ultimately responsible for their own actions and must accept the consequences of such. Blaming society for the actions of an individual makes as much as sense as saying Alcohol is bad because someone got into an accident after drinking. Individuals commit crimes, individuals should be punished. Anything else is just shirking your responsibility.

[Maxim Litvinov]

People no more misbehave than a bird misbehaves.

A bird can do what is not wanted of it, but it should not be punished for not according to such standards if the punishment doesn't achieve anything. For it is doing what its body and environment accustomed it to do.

[Ixa]

People are not responsible for misbehaving.

Right there you lost me. People are ultimately responsible for their own actions and must accept the consequences of such. Blaming society for the actions of an individual makes as much as sense as saying Alcohol is bad because someone got into an accident after drinking. Individuals commit crimes, individuals should be punished. Anything else is just shirking your responsibility.

Instead of reading just one sentence of my post, read the entire post.
I satisfactorily addressed the question of responsibility.

B.F Skinner provides some good examples as regards this question.

"In the tradition view a young person is responsible for obeying the law
and may be justly punished if he disobeys, but effective punitive
contigencies are hard to maintain, and other measures have therefore
been sought. Evidence that deliquency is commoner in certain kinds of
neighborhoods and among poorer people seems relevant. A person is
more likely to steal if he has little or nothing of his own, if his education
has not prepared him to get and hold a job so that he may buy what he
needs, if no jobs are available, if he has not been taught to obey the law,
or if he often sees others breaking the law with impunity. Under such
conditions delinquent behaviour is powerfully reinforced . . . ."

". . . We shall not solve the problems of alcoholism and juvenile
delinquency by increasing a sense of responsibility. It is the environment
which is 'responsible' for the objectionable behaviour, and it is the
environment which must be changed. . . . When we make the world less
punishing or teach people how to avoid natural punishments . . . we are
not destroying responsibility or threatening any other occult quality. We
are simply making the world a safer place."

Also:

"The concept of responsibility is particularly weak when behaviour is
traced to genetic determiners. . . . Individuals presumably differ, as
species differ, in the extent to which they resond aggressively or are
reinforced when they effect aggressive damage, or in the extent to which
they engage in sexual behaviour or are affected by sexual reinforcement.
Are they, therefore, equally responsible for controlling aggressive or
sexual behaviour, and is it fair to punish them to the same extent? If we
do not punish someone for a club foot, should we punish him for being
quick to anger or highly susceptible to sexual reinforcement? . . . The
issue is controllability [not responsibility]. We cannot change genetic
defects by punishment; we can work only through a much longer time
scale. What must be changed is not the responsibilty of autonomous man
but the conditions, environmental or genetic, of which a person's
behaviour is a function."

"In the old view it was the student who failed, the child who went wrong,
the citizen who broke the law, and the poor who were poor because they
were idle, but it is now commonly said that there are no dull students but
only poor teachers, no bad children but only bad parents, no deliquency
except on the part of law enforcement agencies, and no indolent men but
only poor incentive systems . . . The mistake [of this view]. . . is to put the
responsibility anywhere, to suppose that somewhere a causal sequence is
initiated."

"A person who has been punished is not thereby simply less inclined to
behave in a given way; at best, he learns to avoid punishment."

[Ixa]

Punishment, I think you will agree Todd, is justified when the person being
punished is responsible for the punishable act. If he is not
responsible for it, it is morally incorrect that he should be "punished" for it.
However, it must be realised that all behaviour is caused by factors
of which we have no control, and hence for which we are not
responsible. These factors can be categorised as being either genetic or
environmental. Surely it is inappropriate to punish someone for a genetic
defect, which is clearly beyond his responsiblity. As for environmental
factors, which are the cause of most human (and animal) behaviour
(except purely reflexive behaviour) - these, too, are, it is apparent,
beyond our control. We do not choose to live in an environment with
ineffective reinforcement methods. Human bahaviour is caused not by the
will of some "inner man" (mind), but the person's reinforcement history -
for which it cannot be said he is responsible, and for which therefore it
would be morally incorrect to punish him.

[Atromos]

How many excuses can you run up before you finally say it's that person's fault? It's the environment, they weren't raised correctly, their upbringing, their slight retardation.... that's just ludicrous and so is the example that i believe you are posing to correct such an institutional failure. You are saying that we should regulate the WAY people both grow up, are raised, and what things they are subjected to in their life? Personally i'd rather have my items stolen from me for some crack-head than be told by some vicious dictator what to do and how to do it or else im punished for THAT. The point is that in THAT system, you'd be punished for making acts that might LEAD to criminal behaviour, not necessarily blamed for the crime itself.

Having people have their own incentives in the world is a need both to human desire and to modern government. You wonder why any of the communists nations stuck around for very long.... cause the people were tired of shit coming from dictators... well that AND WWII but hey, you know, whatever. Point in case, i believe it's immoral to NOT blame people for their own actions (to a certain degree) because someone must be held responsible, and side-stepping the individual at hand and blaming these 2nd-hand responsibilities on someone OTHER than the culprit is stupid. That's like blaming a gun-store for a murder, when the murderer is the one who pulled the trigger.

[Cap]

People are responsible for their own actions... regardless of the causes for their deviant tendancies.


Say I was molested and beaten as a child, and it really messed me up psychologically. I know that killing someone is against the law, and I know that I will probably end up in prison for a life sentence if I kill someone.

I then go and kill someone, knowing full well the punishment that comes along with it, before I commit the act. Should I not be punished??? Of course I should be punished... it doesn't matter that I was messed up from my childhood, I am still responsible for my own behaviour. End of story.


Cap

[Comrade Ogilvy]

People are responsible for their own actions... That's true. But you must know why they do it. I agree with Ixabert in rest of the post.

[Noumenon]

This all comes down to whether you believe free will exists or not. If not, then you believe that a person's environment decides their behavior, and they are not responsible. That means a person should not be rewarded for anything good they might do, because they only did it because of their environment. Same for people who do bad, they should not be punished then. Whatever people do is pre-determined by their environment and genetics.

I find the entire argument of pre-destination ridiculous. People who believe in that ignore the fact that we have control over our minds, thats what consciousness is. We don't simply react to stimulus like some sort of robot. It is true that our environment and genetics influence us, but we have complete control over our decisions. A person who grows up in an environment where murder is socially accepted is going to be influenced to murder, but that doesn't mean he is compelled to. If he then enters a society where murder is considered wrong, and he is made aware of the consequences, then he must be held responsible for his actions. If he decides to murder anyway, he must be punished.

It should be noted that I don't think of life imprisonment and the death penalty as punishment, exactly. Punishment is usually administered to improve behavior. We don't throw people in prison for life to improve their behavior, if anything its going to make it worse. The reason for life imprisonment and the death penalty is justice. Justice is connected with the idea of revenge, eye for an eye. Of course, we try to be civilized about this, but we still want revenge in some manner. Think of it this way, if someone murdered your entire family, you would want revenge right? When you finally hunt him down and kill him, that is justice. Letting him live, even if he never murders anyone again, is an injustice.

When we catch murderers and imprison them for life or kill them, we are administering justice, not punishment. Punishment would be torturing them and then releasing them, hoping that they don't murder again for fear of the punishment.

[PGassendi]

Justice is connected with the idea of revenge, eye for an eye. Of course, we try to be civilized about this, but we still want revenge in some manner. Think of it this way, if someone murdered your entire family, you would want revenge right? When you finally hunt him down and kill him, that is justice. Letting him live, even if he never murders anyone again, is an injustice.

Justice- the assignment of merited rewards or punishments
Revenge- an act or instance of retaliating in order to get even

I think it is being a bit too presumptuous to presume that justice and revenge is the same thing. True, if you kill someone who has murdered your family you will feel better, but murder is murder no matter what the motive. I think you could have used a better example.

As for criminals being victims of their environments, that may be true, but what is our government supposed to do? Give them a slap on the wrist and ask them not to do it again? Troubles in peoples home lives cant be stopped by our government. If a person makes the decision to commit a crime such as murder, since they are fully aware of the consequences of their actions, they should be held responsible and accept the penalty.

We don’t blame people for being born with defects, but if someone can’t control their anger, or hatred and that results in a crime, then we should blame them. People know that crime will be punished, justice will be served, don’t give bad people excuses to do bad things. If a person is born with the urge to hurt and kill everything near them, should we just let them because they were born that way?


- Gassendi

[Maxim Litvinov]

DTguitarist99 -

The problem is that we already *know* that environment and genetics affect people's actions. And it is a generally accepted principle that people are only *guilty* of committing an action according to how much control they had over that action.

Individual circumstances have always been accepted as mitigating circumstances when accepting punishment. All I am suggesting is that such a policy should be applied consistently and across the board.

As for your argument against pre-destination. Well, it is not very compelling. You only seem to be saying 'We feel like we control our minds, therefore we do, therefore there is no pre-destination'. Well, we are also tricked into believing simple optical illusions.

There is good experimental evidence, for instance, to suggest that our synapses have made a decision for us, long before our conscious mind confabulates that it has brought about this decision through logical processes.

But I don't have to accept a lack of free will to argue my case. I just claim that a system which concentrates on producing a culture of crime prevention, that recognises the social causes of crime, and that only detains people in order to keep them from hurting society is more effective in producing a net humane result for society, than a system which is based almost entirely upon retribution for crimes committed.

[pwilliams]

Skinner's Behaviorism Theories have gone the way of the 50's and 60's. Positive and Negitive reinforcement work to a degree, but wear off after a period of time.

I dont see how you can't hold one responsible for ones actions. If someone is able to distinguish b/w right and wrong, good and bad, they can be held responsible for thier actions.

People are a product of both genetics and environment. Also, people are able to overcome genetics. People with ADHD are often able to surpress thier hyperactive state and even can grow out of it. In a society that teaches you what is right and what is wrong thier are few excuses for doing the latter.

[Maxim Litvinov]

People should be made accountable for their actions insofar as they are responsible for those actions -- something that I think we all agree on.

What we don't agree on is:
1] how responsible people are for their actions. On the flipside of the coin, there is clearly a propensity for certain groups of people to be more likely to perform certain actions based upon their genetics and environment. If it is accepted that people should not be punished due to their genetics and environment, then the system has to make sure that such propensities don't lead to discrimination.
2] whether punishment is a relevant action to take in regard to a 'wrong' action, and whether this punishment should be 'gaol'. Just as you allude to Skinner being slightly passe nowadays, so to the idea of punishment as an automatic requirement is passe. Ideas of rehabilitation or alternative forms of therapy are more popular than they previously were.

Finally, I think the emphasis of Ixabert's post was this -- what we should be more focussed on is not "retribution": or working out how to punish people after the act, but "prevention": working out how to build a society which is environmentally less likely to produce the act - and not just through crude methods of dissuasion through 'raising the punishment'.

[Ixa]

Skinner's Behaviorism Theories have gone the way of the 50's and 60's.

That is completely false.

I dont see how you can't hold one responsible for ones actions. If someone is able to distinguish b/w right and wrong, good and bad, they can be held responsible for thier actions.

I have given some of my reasons above.

People are a product of both genetics and environment. Also, people are able to overcome genetics. People with ADHD are often able to surpress thier hyperactive state and even can grow out of it.

And none of this conflicts with Skinner's behaviourism.

In a society that teaches you what is right and what is wrong thier are few excuses for doing the latter.

It is what Skinner calls "automatic goodness". By arranging the
environment such that people automatically behave well, it is
believed that we are somehow taking away man's dignity. Skinner goes
at length demonstrating the absurdity of this idea.
Also, you again appeal to the "inner man", whose existence is unverifiable.
I have shown elsewhere how this conception is circular. I can repost
this if you want.

[Ixa]

The argument of responsibility is based on the notion of an
"inner man". Therefore I shall comment on the "inner man"

Primitive man attributed the movements of bodies to their being
possessed by demons.

Later, as man developed, "demons" were largely replaced by
personified indwelling agents, such as "jubilance" etc.

Later these explanations became more sophistcated - for
instance, the rock was said to move because it had "impetus".

And later the notion of indwelling agents which cause things
to move etc was abandonded, for obvious reasons.

Yet it still exists in psychology - in the form of "human
nature", "attitudes", "personality", "sense of purpose",
"will to power", etc. - what Skinner calls "the inner man".

Psychology & philosophy have been so delayed developmentally
because, unlike physics and biology, these indwelling agents
have been not done away with.

Skinner, who is regarded as the most influential psychologist since
Freud, said it quite well in his book Beyond Freedom and
Dignity (a must-read, in my opinion):

"Unable to understand how or why the person we see behaves
as he does, we attribute his behaviour to a person we
cannot see, whose behaviour we cannot explain either, but
about whom we are not inclined to ask questions. . . . The
function of the inner man is to provide an explanation
which will not be explained in turn."

Thus we try to explain behaviour by appealing to the
unobservable, by appealing to this invisible thing called
"personality" - but do not explain personality.

Just as Christian primitives try to explain the universe
by appealing to the God idea - without explaining God
Himself- so we try to explain human behaviour by appealing
to personality, the will, the ego, the inner man, or whatever
you want to call it, but do not explain personality the will, the
ego, etc. The inner man - that is, personality - serves to
explain that which we cannot explain. Like God, the existence
of this "inner man" depends on our ignorance. Like God, he
disappears as we continue to become less ignorant.

"Inner man initiates, creates, originates, is the centre
from which behaviour eminates. He remains devine as he was
with the Greeks. . . . He is miraculous. . . ."

[Ixa]

That the notion of the "inner man" is circular and unscientific.

What is said to constitute a personality is a congeries of "traits".

Let us examime "traits".

Traits are inferred from behaviour (e.g., by way of a "self-report").
They are summary descriptives of behaviour.
To say: "Bob is sad because he is crying" (an inference)
and "Bob is crying because he is sad" (an explanation) is circular
reasoning.

The concept of "personality", the "inner man" is illogical.

In a self-report (which is a type ofbehaviour), how are measurable
qualities described? And even if they are measurable traits which can
be described, how can someone else's self-report be accurate? How likely
is it that he can describe his mental states with sufficient accuracy when
no one even understands mental states, when no one can explain them?
And then we have the psychologist's interpretation of the self-report, which
further decreases accuracy.

Traits are inferred from behaviour because mental states are not
equally observable by everyone: in fact, only him who experiences a
mental state can observe that mental state. They are private experiences
which can only be inferred from one's behaviour (e.g., a self-report,
crying, etc) and by no other means whatseover. And as I have shown,
such thinking is always circular.

Science must be based on direct observation. External variables
are necessary for science; therefore progress in psychology can only be
had if "mentalism" is abandoned in psychology. Such assumptions, in fact,
predate science.