Sorry it took so long to get back to you. I didn't forget but simply hadn't found the time to formulate a reply.
Monolith wrote:
our decisions in each of those cases are not due to our immediate, rational thought, but due to who we are as a result of our genetics and our environment. Put a starving criminal and a starving child in a room with one loaf of bread, and im sure you have no doubt who would go hungry?
A "criminal" might choose to share the bread with a child while a "non-criminal" chose to hoard it for himself. We all have our own strengths and weaknesses, and some people can easily control some types of urges while failing to control others. A child molester might refrain from stealing. A glutton might refrain from rape. Empathy helps people refrain from harming others (as does social training and fear of punishment) so I suppose that you could argue that anyone lacking in this area is inherently a "criminal," or vice-versa.
Quote:How you're raised will impact how you deal with life once you're grown, and it will play a role in the decisions you make. But since those beliefs were ingrained in you from birth, do you really have a choice? Or is that decision "forced" upon you by what you've previously been taught? Is a psycologically "normal" person who has been raised by the perfect parents ever in danger of becoming a murderer?
I believe that we have a choice, or rather a long series of choices, that determine who we are at any given time. We can change who we are if we are motivated to do so. But where does the motivation come from? The influence of family, friends, books, television, a mentor who chances into our life, a life-changing experience such as illness, accident, or loss of someone/thing we loved? Perhaps we have no control over what happens to us, but I think that we DO have some control over how we respond. A series of bad choices could turn a "normal" child into a murderer, as could a stint in the Army, drugs, mental illness, or circumstances where he felt that murder was the moral choice.
Quote:So here you agree that people are heavily influenced by emotion - by selfishness ("immediate pleasure") - and that society has no choice but to give them a greater incentive to control themselves. So we pander to peoples selfishness by making their reward greater if they dont commit crime than if they do. Does this not suggest that people are not making rational decisions, but that instead their emotions must be coddled so that they make the right decision?
Well, yes, it IS society's job to make "good" behavior attractive and "bad" behavior undesirable. Of what use would emotions be if we did not use them to help make decisions? Why else would they have evolved?
Quote:I agree. Just because a person isnt responsible for their actions should you allow them to run free. Just dont fool yourself into thinking you're being "just". You're doing what's necessary for your society to continue to live as it chooses, without interference from those who can't adapt to it.
What is unjust about locking up someone who cannot or will not adhere to the social contract? Using your original premise, those who do the locking up have no more control over their actions than those who are locked up. :wink:
:wink:
