Blame sits along side punishment.
You can't say, "It's not your fault, but we're going to kill you anyway."
Monolith,
Your point raises a more fundamental question which appears to have been overlooked. The real question here is, what the heck is responsibility? What is a person really responsible for?
You point out that a person's behavior is apparently a function of their genetics and environment. I tend to agree.
This also ties in strongly with the threads on determinism. You are basically adopting a deterministic viewpoint of the mind -- we don't "really" make choices, we just all follow our individual "paths of least resistance" if you will.
Or in other words, if you were me, and you had seen and experienced all the same things I had, and you were in the same situation...you'd do the exact same thing.
Under this kind of reasoning, it is difficult to consider the concept of "responsibility" or "fault" as being real because the human becomes really just a leaf in the wind of life, with no more control over their actual life than a leaf.
I believe that on a basic level, this is probably true.
However, as humans, we do not really care. If I see a murdurer kill someone I love, I will be flooded with emotions of hatred towards that individual -- rather than considering the fact that this man is merely acting the way that anyone in his exact circumstances would act.
When we consider blame, and fault, we are really ignoring a person's history, putting everyone at the same equal playing field and assuming that the differences in action are a result of the person's "goodness." This allows us to place fault.
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.
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.
So now you're arguing that every parent is "effective and competent"? Surely you must be, because you dont seem to believe that an uncontrollable temper could ever get through these steadfast defenses into adulthood...?
And how can you say in the course of two sentences that infants have no innate temper, and then that they cry when they're hungry, when they're tired, etc...? You're telling me that someone taught them behavior?
Infants have a temper. We just accept it when people are that age because they truly are helpless otherwise. But to try and say that it's not really a temper, that it's some different emotional response that people have later in life is a pretty far stretch.
So you really do believe that selfishness (or any trait) is a choice that people make? Like a choice of what to eat for breakfast? Adolf Hitler chose to murder millions of people, he wasn't just wired differently than the rest of us? Mother Theresa didnt have some inner drive to do good in the world, she just woke up one morning and said "i think ill dedicate myself to india's poor"? Is depression a choice people make, too?
Unless you're arguing that everyone is capable of this, your point is moot.
To suggest that a society which exists solely because of basic, animalistic instincts to reproduce would be able to en masse become perfectly stoic is bullshit.
Im [sic] sure you will. Just as you controlled your temper when you decided that this sentence helped your argument along:
Quote:Not to put too fine a point on it--bullshit.
With regards to "statements from authority" -- who exactly should i be referring to when trying to "prove" a philosophical point? Since when is philosophy neuroscience? Did i miss the peer-reviewed journal of philosophical topics...?
I see... so my argument isn't plausible, yet yours is... because you disagree....
This is like a Jew asking a Christian for proof of his religion.
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....
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.....
So what is it about psychopaths that makes them different enough from the rest of us that you'd let them off the hook?
psy·cho·path (sī'kə-păth') n.
A person with an antisocial personality disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior without empathy or remorse.
What makes your argument any more plausible...? Because you believe one unprovable theory more than another?
Let's assume homosexuality is still illegal, as it was for a very long time (and technically still is in some states). What of your argument, then...? Would you argue that simply because homosexuality at that time was an anti-social behavior, that there would be no homosexuals?
We may not have control of our biological drives, but as civilized human beings, we DO have the ability to choose the way we respond to those urges. Starving people can refrain from stealing food. Teenagers can abstain from sex. An angry person can punch a pillow instead of his wife. A senator can refuse to accept bribes.
But first they have to believe that they can and must control their urges. If they believe that they cannot control themselves, they will not try. Therefore children are taught self-control, rewarded with social approval for practicing it, selfish behavior is frowned on, and immoral acts are prohibbited. It is necessary for a society to believe that self-control is achievable in order to come up with the training, rules, incentives and punishments that make it work. And it does work, for the vast majority.
If people think that immediate pleasure outweighs possible future consequences or that they will likely get away with bad behavior, they have no incentive to control their urges. Therefore society sets and enforces rules because the threat of consequences gives most people a good enough reason to refrain from evil. Religion may add to the equation with the belief that God is always watching and will punish transgressors. But some people lack the mental capacity to know good from evil, and some choose to satisfy their own urges regardless of the pain they inflict on others.
If criminals cannot empathize with their victim, do not care about others' feelings, and accept no responsibility to adhere to the social contract, it doesn't really matter whether they blame nature or nurture. They should be locked up for the rest of their lives because they cannot be trusted to live in society with us.
Monolith wrote:So now you're arguing that every parent is "effective and competent"? Surely you must be, because you dont seem to believe that an uncontrollable temper could ever get through these steadfast defenses into adulthood...?
Horseshit--i was responding to your unsupported contention that a child would be born with an ungovernable temper. It ought to have been obvious to you that i was describing those parents whose children do not grow up to display ungovernable tempers, and that if there are adults with ungovernable tempers, their parents can hardly be described as having been effective an ungovernable. You seem to want to think only in absolutes, but i am not limited by your inability to understand nuance and distinctions.
Quote:And how can you say in the course of two sentences that infants have no innate temper, and then that they cry when they're hungry, when they're tired, etc...? You're telling me that someone taught them behavior?
No, i'm not saying anything of the kind. What basis do you have for attempting to inferentially state that an infant crying is evidence of "temper?" Here, i'll help you along, you have no basis for such a statement.
Quote:Infants have a temper. We just accept it when people are that age because they truly are helpless otherwise. But to try and say that it's not really a temper, that it's some different emotional response that people have later in life is a pretty far stretch.
For you to try to say that an infant crying is an example of temper is completely unreasonable if you do not provide evidence or a plausible argument. As has been the case all along, you do neither. For you to attempt to suggest that all attributes of human character are innate and that none are learned (which is your inferential position) is the big stretch here.
Quote:So you really do believe that selfishness (or any trait) is a choice that people make? Like a choice of what to eat for breakfast? Adolf Hitler chose to murder millions of people, he wasn't just wired differently than the rest of us? Mother Theresa didnt have some inner drive to do good in the world, she just woke up one morning and said "i think ill dedicate myself to india's poor"? Is depression a choice people make, too?
Of course i don't believe that, nor have i said anything of the kind.
Most character traits in most people can reasonably assume to have been learned. Emotion may not be a conscious choice, but it is a choice nonetheless, even if the choice was made by those who failed to equip a child to live responsibly in society. What one eats for breakfast is a conscious choice, obviously, even if conditioned by learned prejudices. You are just peddling more false analogies.
To pile up your false analogies, you come up with yet another string of absurdities. Godwin's Law alert--Hitler has entered the building. If you intend to introduce a contention about people being "wired," then you'll nedd to provide a definition and evidence that it is a plausible assumption. Hilter's antipathy for the Jews was a product of a good deal of learning, not the least of which was having learned the casual anti-semitism which was rife in Europe from 1889 until he took power (so that you won't indulge more of your customary confused ranting, 1889 is the year in which he was born). Mother Teresa was a product of a religious indoctrination without which there would have been no reason to assume that she'd have ended up in Mumbai in the first place.
Quote:Unless you're arguing that everyone is capable of this, your point is moot.
To suggest that a society which exists solely because of basic, animalistic instincts to reproduce would be able to en masse become perfectly stoic is bullshit.
Obviously, from what i've written, i don't argue an absolute statement about anyone's character or actions. I've already carefull sic taken notice of sociopathic and pyschopathic persons. My position is that the majority of people are capable of self-control, if they have learned it in childhood. At no time have i indulged your penchant for global statements about what is or is not intrinsic in human character--you're the one who's attempting to peddle that horseshit.
I have not suggested anything of the kind, because i don't acknowledge your stipulations. I don't consider that society exists solely because of animalistic instinct--your assertion to that effect without substantiation is meaningless--nor have i stated or even suggested that society en masse are capable of or likely to become stoic. I have consistently referred to a social contract, and taken notice that people with violate the contract, and that there are therefore consequences attached to non-compliance.
Quote:Im [sic] sure you will. Just as you controlled your temper when you decided that this sentence helped your argument along:
Quote:Not to put too fine a point on it--bullshit.
You can claim that was a display of bad temper on my part, but you will be wrong, and, once again, will be making a claim without substantiation or a compelling argument. You can't elicit bad temper from me, because all you are to me is so many dancing eletrons sic which light up this monitor's screen. You overrate your own significance in my life if you think you can lead me to display bad temper.
Philosphy is certainly not neuro-science. A statement that asserts without evidence that homosexuals are homosexual because it is innate, and that they cannot "help" but be homosexual is not a philosophical statement. It is the kind of statement which no one need take seriously without a plausible argument for the case, or evidence from science, such as neuro-science. Equally, a claim on your part that murders murder helplessly, without a choice in the matter is not a philosophical statement, and without a plausible argument or scientific evidence, there is no good reason to take the statement seriously. Even philosphy relies upon proofs, and you have provided none.
Quote:I see... so my argument isn't plausible, yet yours is... because you disagree....
This is like a Jew asking a Christian for proof of his religion.
Nonsense. I haven't made any extravagent claims here, but you have. When you make an extravagent claim, you have the burden of proving your claim. You have attempted a philosophical discusion, but it is based upon a priori assumptions and false analogies for which you have given no support. There is no reason for me to disprove you, i can simply point out that you haven't made your case. Which is what i am doing.
Then you agree that its possible for an adult to have an ungovernable temper?
so·ci·o·path (sō'sē-ə-păth', -shē-) n.
One who is affected with a personality disorder marked by antisocial behavior.
And what basis do you have for saying it's not a temper?
See, i look at a baby crying for food and a guy who punches his friend for looking at his girlfriend as the same uncontrollable emotional response. You, on the other hand, seem to think that they're different for an as yet unexplained reason.
No, i made it clear early on that environment plays a big role in the person a child becomes. Not everything is innate, but a good deal is. And unless you're suggesting that a baby has to be taught to cry when its hungry, that ability is innate.
Really? This is what you said in your last post: "Being selfish and willful is a choice of behavior...." Your emphasis, not mine.
You contradict yourself at every step. How is your version of "choice" anything like the defintion of the word when there is no conscious debate on the matter? How can you hold someone responsible for their actions when you yourself admit that they made no conscious decision?
Interesting. In the midst of calling everything false, horseshit, bullshit, and several other animal turds im sure i overlooked, you run headlong into agreement with me.
Hitler was the product of an anti-semitic upbringing? You don't say. Mother Theresa was "indoctrinated" into her religion? Interesting. Both their upbringings played a huge role in what they went on to become? Fascinating. I think you might be on to something here, Setanta.
Neither i, nor those gay men, chose their sexual orientation. They simply are what they are, whether its a product of genetics or environment. No 12 year old on the verge of adolescence decides one day to be gay. He doesnt think to himself, "gee, in this hugely homophobic society i think ill choose a sexual orientation that ostracizes me from my peers and possibly from my family." People are what they are by no choice of their own.
Monolith wrote:So what is it about psychopaths that makes them different enough from the rest of us that you'd let them off the hook?
By definition, psychopaths are pyschologically abnormal.
Answers-dot-com wrote:psy·cho·path (sī'kə-păth') n.
A person with an antisocial personality disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior without empathy or remorse.
But i haven't said that they are "let off the hook," i was simply pointing out to you that there are examples of individuals whose violent proclivities are beyond their own control. The point of that is to lead you to realize that your global statements are invalidated by the significant differences in individuals--unless, of course, you intend to claim that all people are inherently pychopathic. If that is the case, thanks for the laughs.
Quote:What makes your argument any more plausible...? Because you believe one unprovable theory more than another?
At the risk of being repetitiously tedious, i haven't advanced an extraordinary claim--you have, and you haven't supported your claim.
Quote:Let's assume homosexuality is still illegal, as it was for a very long time (and technically still is in some states). What of your argument, then...? Would you argue that simply because homosexuality at that time was an anti-social behavior, that there would be no homosexuals?
No, homosexuality is not illegal in any State of the United States. When homosexuality was briefly illegal in some areas of the world at some times, the objections advanced were religious and moral, no proof was ever advanced, and often none was even offered, that homosexuality is anti-social behavior. Once again, your statement that a thing is so does not make it so.
What is psychopathic and what is not is relative.
All people are not psychopathic because the majority of humanity acts in one way, and a minority acts in another way. The majority declares which behavior is "psychopathic" and which is not.
You insist i speak in absolutes, but you do the same. Can you show me where the line is between psychotic and normal?
I find it hard to believe you're asking for proof in this forum, especially on this topic. If philosophy were able to be learned in absolutes, we'd learn about it in a lab, not via suppositions and exhorations.
Sodomy laws are still on the books in a dozen US states. Technically they were overruled by a 2003 federal decision, but theyre still there. Regardless, calling the outlaw of homosexuality "brief" is laughable considering it's lasted several hundred years.
But this isn't even getting to my point. My original example suggested that homosexuals could no more control their urges than a murder can control his.
Both, at one time or another, have been illegal... and it's not as if homosexuality was outlawed by a state while it's people welcomed it with open arms. And in both cases, the behavior continued.
Monolith wrote:Then you agree that its possible for an adult to have an ungovernable temper?
Certainly, which is precisely why i referred to sociopaths.
It is entirely possible that a person could become sociopathic because of psycological deprivation in youth. However, i do not accept the notion that all people are sociopathic by nature, and my problem with your statement of your thesis is your insistence upon making statements which describe absolutely everyone's motivations, or lack of control for their behavior.
Therefore, i suggest that rather than starting form an assumption that this were so, and attempting to use that as a basis for discussion, you ought first to have advanced that thesis, and left the relative statements about responsibility, social reactions and "justice" until you had succeeded in establishing your initial contentions.
Quote:And what basis do you have for saying it's not a temper?
I'm not saying it isn't temper, i'm saying that you have not substantiated a claim that it is.
Quote:See, i look at a baby crying for food and a guy who punches his friend for looking at his girlfriend as the same uncontrollable emotional response. You, on the other hand, seem to think that they're different for an as yet unexplained reason.
But you have not demonstrated that an infant's crying is motivated by anything other than a response to hunger, fear or pain. To attempt to then equate it to a violent reaction on the part of an adult constitutes a false analogy. I consider them different because it is not established that infants cry for emotional reasons, and until that is established i have no reason to agree that an infant's crying is motivated by exactly the same emotional response as an adult's violence.
Quote:No, i made it clear early on that environment plays a big role in the person a child becomes. Not everything is innate, but a good deal is. And unless you're suggesting that a baby has to be taught to cry when its hungry, that ability is innate.
That infant's have an innate response to their discomfort which consists of crying is not evidence that the response is either emotion or temper. When you say that a good deal is innate, but leave it at that, you beg the questions inherent in your a priori assumptions upon which you have attempted the base the larger discussion of individual responsibility for anti-social behavior. You assume that people cannot help but behave as they do, but offer no evidence or argument for the case; now you are, seemingly, willing to admit that not all behavior is innate. You're all over the road with this one.
Quote:Really? This is what you said in your last post: "Being selfish and willful is a choice of behavior...." Your emphasis, not mine.
Of course i wrote that, which is why i don't accept the contention you make: "Adolf Hitler chose to murder millions of people, he wasn't just wired differently than the rest of us? Mother Theresa didnt have some inner drive to do good in the world, she just woke up one morning and said "i think ill dedicate myself to india's poor"? I am saying that they did indeed choose to behave as they did, and i reject your inferential contention that they act as they do because they are innately compelled to do so. I was saying i don't believe, nor did i state, that selfishness is a choice like what to eat for breakfast. I clearly stated in my response that there are different types of choice and that some are unconscious and some are conscious. You're playing a disingenuous word game here, and isolating my response out of context in order to accomplish that end.
Quote:You contradict yourself at every step. How is your version of "choice" anything like the defintion of the word when there is no conscious debate on the matter? How can you hold someone responsible for their actions when you yourself admit that they made no conscious decision?
I haven't contradicted myself. As i've already pointed out, there are conscious choices (i think i'll have roast baby for breakfast) and there are unconscious choices (not hitting someone who says what you don't like because you have been conditioned in childhood to govern your temper). That you don't wish to acknowledge the distinction is not evidence that i have contradicted myself.
Quote:Interesting. In the midst of calling everything false, horseshit, bullshit, and several other animal turds im sure i overlooked, you run headlong into agreement with me.
Hitler was the product of an anti-semitic upbringing? You don't say. Mother Theresa was "indoctrinated" into her religion? Interesting. Both their upbringings played a huge role in what they went on to become? Fascinating. I think you might be on to something here, Setanta.
Nonsense, i don't agree with you at all. Your thesis holds that neither Hitler nor Mother Teresa made any conscious or unconcious choices to become what they were, but were compelled by personality traits over which they had no control. I was pointing out that people make choices, conscious or unconscious, which derive from experience, and which are not innate. Of course, if you now acknowledge that people are a product of their environment, then it appears that you've abandoned your original position that people have no control over their actions because their charaters are innate, and have decided to agree to the nuances and distinctions which i've been attempting to get you to recognize.
I did not state that Hitler had an anti-semitic upbringing--that's a strawman on your part. He grew up in Europe in the latter 19th century and early 20th century, when antisemitism was a commonplace. That you cannot grasp the distinction does not authorize your attempt to warp what i wrote.
Yes, i consider that anyone who is devoted to a religious faith has been indoctrinated. I know of no good reason to believe that people are born with a propensity to become a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, for an example. They only adhere to religion because they have been indoctrinated in the belief. You keep jumping around, claiming i contradict myself by recognizing the effects of environment and education, and then attempting to ridicule what i've written because i am unwilling to believe that the people in question were innately endowed with their adult character. You are the one who contradicts himself.
Your thesis is predicated upon a claim that people cannot control what they do because their character is innate. Now you want to attempt to claim that your thesis is that people are the result of environment. That is a contradiction.
Understanding that Hitler had been exposed to antisemitism in youth, or that Mother Teresa had been indoctrinated in religion is not at all an agreement that the ". . . are what they are by no choice of their own." Hitler chose to follow a career in gutter politics--that he employed antisemitism can be explained by an exposure to it, and by the knowledge that it would be an effective political technique. In fact, in 1933, Hitler used the Reichstag fire to push through the Enabling Act whereby he took over the legislative powers of the Reichstag. But blaming society's ills on the communists didn't rouse the masses, so he switched to promoting virulent anti-semitism, which his earlier writings show he had already considered plausible, so it worked for him, and from his point of view, anti-semitism as a political technique was vindicated. The "final solution" which involved the attempt to exterminate European Jews came much later, and was first promulgated at the Wannsee Conference in 1942. You're oversimplifying things in the attempt to reduce everything once again to simple black and white terms, and a statement from authority that people can't choose to do what they do. Nothing forced Hitler into politics. Nothing forced him to attempt to use the Reichstag fire and an allegation of a communist threat to Germany to rally the nation to his support. Nothing forced him to switch to anti-semitism when that failed. Those were all choices he made. That they were conditioned by his environment in childhood and youth doesn't alter that he made choices for which he personally was responsible.
Mother Theresa was not compelled by the religious doctrine which she espoused to take holy orders. Having done so, she was not compelled by participation in a religious order to go to India to work with the poor. Those were choices she made.
Learning and environment can condition the points of view which lead people to make choices. That in no way authorizes a silly contention that people are what they are by no choice of their own.
You oversimplify, and you attempt to base your thesis on a priori statements which you have not substantiated, and false analogies. Get over it.
Monolith wrote:What is psychopathic and what is not is relative.
No ****, Sherlock.
Quote:All people are not psychopathic because the majority of humanity acts in one way, and a minority acts in another way. The majority declares which behavior is "psychopathic" and which is not.
You insist i speak in absolutes, but you do the same. Can you show me where the line is between psychotic and normal?
Yes, certainly. The line is crosed when an individual demonstrates that he or she is: A person with an antisocial personality disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior without empathy or remorse.--by definition. Have you not been paying attention?
Quote:Sodomy laws are still on the books in a dozen US states. Technically they were overruled by a 2003 federal decision, but theyre still there. Regardless, calling the outlaw of homosexuality "brief" is laughable considering it's lasted several hundred years.
An unenforcable law cannot make anything illegal. Claiming that the laws against homosexuality which existed only in some places for a few hundred years is conclusive in the face of overwhelming evidence that homosexuality has been practiced and condoned for millenia right across the globe, and including in western socities is what is truly laughable. Are you aware that Alexander III of Macedon was at least bi-sexual, and possibly homosexual? Are you aware that Iulius Caesar was bi-sexual? Are you aware that Richard Lionheart was homosexual? Are you aware that Leonardo da Vinci was homosexual? Are you aware that King James I and VI was homosexual (hint--responsible for the King James Bible)?
Quote:But this isn't even getting to my point. My original example suggested that homosexuals could no more control their urges than a murder can control his.
Yes, i'm aware of that, and you didn't provide an example, you just threw the statement out there, and attempted to start a discussion on that basis without having established that this is true. That's why i have objected all along to your thesis, because it is based on assumptions which you haven't substantiated.
Quote:Both, at one time or another, have been illegal... and it's not as if homosexuality was outlawed by a state while it's people welcomed it with open arms. And in both cases, the behavior continued.
I'd say it's a pretty safe statement that murder has always been illegal. Nevertheless, noting that homosexuality and murder persist, whether or not outlawed by society, does not constitute evidence that: "People are what they are by no choice of their own." That was the concluding statement of your opening post, and the basis for your thesis--but you have failed to demonstrate as much, and anyone willing to argue your remarks about what is "just" and who is to "blame" for behavior would have accepted that contention on your part. I don't accept it, and therefore see no basis to proceed to a discussion of "blame" and what is "just."
By the way, if your thesis were correct, we'd still have slavery and women would not have the vote, there never would have been monotheism, nor democratic republics, and everyone would still know the earth was flat, and that the celestial bodies revolved around a stationary earth.
People change, and change their minds, and do so constantly. That alone is strong evidence against your thesis.
