Evil doesnt exist, and you cant blame people for "crime"

In regard to murder, the question of self-control is trumped by other human beings' right to live.

Without some evidence on your part, or compelling argument, there is no reason to accept your contention that people murder because they are compelled to it by their intrinsic nature. That is a gross oversimplification, which ignores that people might have ungovernable tempers because they never learned to govern their temper; that people commit "crimes of passion" in which their actions are governed by conclusions which they have derived, not necessarily from a reasonable process of consideration; that people murder in cold blood, expecting to benefit from the action, or avoid an unwanted consequence, and that they do not expect to be apprehended for the crime. There are many, many reasons for the crime of murder, and i have no good reason, especially in the absence of plausible argument or reference to a rigorous study on your part.

All those things you mentioned - ungovernable tempers, crimes of passion, etc are exactly what im talking about. No one chooses to have a temper so violent that one day it explodes into murder. Is it their fault they were born with that temper?

Wouldn't that person have had a much smaller chance of committing murder if they were born without that temper? If someone becomes so filled with passionate hatred and emotion that they're driven to murder, then its blatantly obvious that it's not their logical choice to murder, but that their biology has taken over and driven them down that murderous road.

We want to believe that people make a choice to murder, because it gives us a feeling of control over our lives. It empowers us with the feeling that we control what we do, that our mind alone is powerful enough to overcome our biology. In reality, our choices are governed more by biology than we'd like to admit, and it's only our moral-code that defines which actions should be accepted and which should not.

And those moral codes are defined by selfishness. Or to but it in nicer terms, they're defined by which acts help society and which harm it.

Monllith,

To accept your premise, would be the end of law and civilization. If no one is responsible for their behavior, then no behavior is reprehensible nor unacceptable. Tigers do not murder, but humans do. Humans have and make countless choices every day. Some chose to take what belongs to others by deceit, violence, or threat of violence. Why should they not be held responsible by society for those choices? Because the poor soul "wanted" something and chose to take it by socially unacceptable means?

There are child abusers and exploiters in most societies. They seem to be driven to their crimes by deep emotional forces that the criminal might not even be able to control. Should that mean that the crime should be excused, and the criminal hired to run a preschool without close supervision? One prosecutes these animals not to reform them (in many cases they aren't capable of reform), but to lock them away from society where they can no longer harm the most vulnerable of victims.

Perhaps this sort of criminal, the criminally insane, should be treated differently than the average murderer. Perhaps, they should be committed to life without any chance of parol to an institution for the criminally insane, or perhaps we could go back to the traditional solution and kill them outright like any mad dog in the streets. To accept your premise, that is how society should treat all criminal-anti-social proscribed behavior. If the murderer can't help himself, then he's far too dangerous to let associate with the rest of humanity which accepts the idea that each of us is responsible for their choices and actions.

There is no good reason to assume that anyone is born with an ungovernable temper. Small children are ultimate egoists--they believe that the cosmos centers on them, and that they should not be thwarted in any desire. Anyone with even a casual familiarity with the behavior of two-year-old children will recognize this. Bad temper is a reaction to one not getting from one's surroundings what one wants, or to which one considers oneself entitled. People who effectively raise their children teach them to govern their tempers, to defer gratification, to accept that there are things they cannot have or do. There is absolutely no basis for assuming that people are born with ungovernable tempers, and you provide not even a plausible argument to believe as much.

Quote:

Wouldn't that person have had a much smaller chance of committing murder if they were born without that temper? If someone becomes so filled with passionate hatred and emotion that they're driven to murder, then its blatantly obvious that it's not their logical choice to murder, but that their biology has taken over and driven them down that murderous road.

Not to put too fine a point on it--bullshit. See my response above.

Quote:

We want to believe that people make a choice to murder, because it gives us a feeling of control over our lives. It empowers us with the feeling that we control what we do, that our mind alone is powerful enough to overcome our biology. In reality, our choices are governed more by biology than we'd like to admit, and it's only our moral-code that defines which actions should be accepted and which should not.

Without evidence, or an argument more plausible than your statements from authority, i have absolutely no good reason to buy into any of this tripe.

Quote:

And those moral codes are defined by selfishness. Or to put it in nicer terms, they're defined by which acts help society and which harm it.

Whether or not one defines morality as motivated by selfishness is meaningless in such a discussion. You simply haven't shown that any of your contentions are plausible, much less true. I don't happen to have any regard for morality at all, and have no doubt that all judgments about what is "good" and what is "bad" are subjective judgments. So what? I see no reason to rail against a social contract, which makes salutary provision for the lives of us all. I also happen to understand enlightened self-interest, which can make a selfish motive the engine of altruism.

You've made no case here, just thrown out assertions.

But im confused even further, now... in one breath you say all children are egoists who think nothing of themselves, and in the next you say no one is born with an ungovernable temper. What else is an egoist but someone with an ungovernable temper when they dont get what they want?

Even disregarding that, since not all people "teach [their children] to govern their tempers...," then these untaught people will grow up with a temper that they were never taught to control, and therefore will act without said control.

So emotions have no bearing on your actions?

Well, if you're not going to engage in this discussion beyond "i dont want to believe it so nyah-nyah" then i guess there's not much more i can do.

In a discussion about why criminals are no worse than the rest of us, you think the code we use to define "good" and "bad" has no place?

Read what Sozobe has written before my post--she has summed it all up very well.

All those things you mentioned - ungovernable tempers, crimes of passion, etc are exactly what im talking about.
No one chooses to have a temper so violent that one day it explodes into murder.

No, we are not born with a temper, its called social process, its what we are taught from childhood, its called morals: such as learning right from wrong, being taught values, and respect.

Is it their fault they were born with that temper? Wouldn't that person have had a much smaller chance of committing murder if they were born without that temper? If someone becomes so filled with passionate hatred and emotion that they're driven to murder, then its blatantly obvious that it's not their logical choice to murder, but that their biology has taken over and driven them down that murderous road.

I disagree. Its not blatantly obvious that it wasn't thier own choice to murder. Thats called rational choice, each person has the capacity to understand right from wrong. That is unless they are so mentally retarded that they cannot understand simple concepts. I don't feel that my biological makeup determines whether or not I commit murder. Its everything in my life I have encountered from day one. I understand the concept that if I commit a murder, someone dies, I go to jail. Simple as that.

We want to believe that people make a choice to murder, because it gives us a feeling of control over our lives.

They do make a choice to murder, even serial killers made that choice, even though they can not control the urge. Do yourself a favor and visit the Crime Library, read the story on Henry Lee Lucas and Otis Toole..... http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/henry_lee_lucas/1.html He wasn't born a pyschopath, it was instilled in him through the social processes he dealt with from birth. If I had to endure what he went through as a child, hell I'd be crazy too....

It empowers us with the feeling that we control what we do, that our mind alone is powerful enough to overcome our biology. In reality, our choices are governed more by biology than we'd like to admit,Where's it say that? and it's only our moral-code that defines which actions should be accepted and which should not. And those moral codes are defined by selfishness.

How is it selfish to have a moral code? How is it selfish to lock someone up that committed a murder? Was it selfish to lock up those that blew up the Trade Center? Even they had a choice.....

Or to but it in nicer terms, they're defined by which acts help society and which harm it.

The temper isn't to be considered innate. Infants cry when they are hungry, when they pee their pants, when they are tired, when they are startled or frightened. People pick them up, and do what they can to soothe them. Later, when they attempt the same type of trick, people basically adopt a "get over it" attitude--it is at that point that temper can emerge, and it is at that point that effective and competent parents teach children to control themselves.

Quote:

Even disregarding that, since not all people "teach [their children] to govern their tempers...," then these untaught people will grow up with a temper that they were never taught to control, and therefore will act without said control.

So what? That doesn't somehow absolve them of the responsibility for their actions. Being selfish and willful is a choice of behavior which is not encouraged in society--and society begins the process of discouraging such behavior in elementary schools. People don't get a pass on anti-social behavior just because they've been consistently and childishly willful all of their lives.

Quote:

So emotions have no bearing on your actions?

Not for people who have learned to and intend to control their response to situations in which they react emotionally.

Quote:

Well, if you're not going to engage in this discussion beyond "i dont want to believe it so nyah-nyah" then i guess there's not much more i can do.

I will, i assure you, ignore childish attempts to engage my temper by petty, puerile insults. I haven't said that i do or don't want to believe anything. If you have a problem with my criticism of your use of statements from authority, you might take the inferential suggestion, and either provide evidence for your point of view, or make a plausible argument. So far, you haven't done so--so it certainly does look as though there is little point in discussing this with you.

Not to put too fine a point on it--bullshit.

Quote:

In a discussion about why criminals are no worse than the rest of us, you think the code we use to define "good" and "bad" has no place?

This is not a discussion of whether or not criminals are "no worse" than the rest of us--it is, however, an attempt on your part to foist that point of view off on the rest of us without either evidence or a plausible argument. There was absolutely nothing in what i wrote to suggest that i think the "code" we use to define "good" and "bad" has no place. I simply stated that i don't believe in morality, while acknowledging that i do believe in a social contract.

This is a very poor effort on your part so far.

Read what Sozobe has written before my post--she has summed it all up very well.

Let me help you along, Monolith. When i selected murder to focus the discusison, i did so because there are so many reasons why murder is committed. My purpose was to point to the flaw of global attribution in your argument. You wished to contend that all murders are the acts of people who cannot control their behavior, who are not responsible for their actions. Now, if you had responded by pointing out that sociopathic or psychopathic people who murder can be said not to be able to control their impulse to commit murder, we'd have been off an running in an interesting dicussion. I'd be more than willing to acknowledge that sociopathic and psychopathic behavior is often (but not necessarily always) beyond the control of the sociopath or psycopath.

But that would be isolating a subclass of the global class of "people who commit murder." I was attempting to get you to focus and thereby examine your argument. It seems, though, that you would rather pout, and accuse (falsely) those who disagree with you of simply not wishing to believe you. Make a plausible argument, and there'll be a basis for discussion.

Sozobe has pointed out the flaw in your initial thesis, in linking homosexuality to anti-social behavior. Homosexuality is not illegal--it cannot be reasonably be said to be anti-social behavior. You were constructing a false analogy.