Escape Artists
The Lounge at the End of the Universe => Gallimaufry => Topic started by: Mr. Tweedy on December 05, 2007, 03:10:34 AM
-
I liked this story because I found it to be a humorous parody of the liberal mindset which regards evil as a symptom rather than a disease. Rather than believe that evil deeds come from evil hearts, it is believed that all hearts are good and that evil is the result of external pressure caused by circumstances. Remove the circumstances, the logic goes, and the evil deeds will vanish and be replaced with good. This mindset essentially regards people as soulless puppets who will do no more and no less than what their environment programs them to do. This is false.
Case in point:
Rather than punish the hitman for his evil deeds, the state goes to great lengths in an attempt to rehabilitate him. This rehabilitation does not involve remorse or repentance on his part. His heart is not changed. It is bypassed. He is given a new identity, and it is assumed that this (extremely thorough) change of circumstance will transform him from the outside in. This attempt not only fails completely, it endows the hitman with new skills of guile and subtlety that make him twice as dangerous as before. He destroys the very do-gooder who was responsible for the rehabilitation attempt and then goes on with plans to destroy on a scale he would previously not have considered. By attempting to impose goodness on a evil man, the state created a monster.
The root problem is not that this guy kills people. It's that he likes killing people. He's evil. Wiping his memory and giving him a new name did not change that, and it was only a matter of time before he rediscovered what he had been forced to forget. This is a wacky demonstration of the fact that changing a person's circumstance does absolutely no good if the evil that created that circumstance is not dealt with. As in the story, an externally-imposed change often worsens the very problem it was intended to fix.
-
I liked this story because I found it to be a humorous parody of the liberal mindset which regards evil as a symptom rather than a disease. Rather than believe that evil deeds come from evil hearts, it is believed that all hearts are good and that evil is the result of external pressure caused by circumstances. Remove the circumstances, the logic goes, and the evil deeds will vanish and be replaced with good. This mindset essentially regards people as soulless puppets who will do no more and no less than what their environment programs them to do. This is false.
Hey - that's a really interesting analysis. It didn't occur to me and I do like the story better for it now too.
My one nitpick is that I don't think this mindset is a liberal one - I know people who share a version of it who are pretty conservative (in the American sense of the word) - remember "Immortal Sin" from a few weeks ago - I know several people - Catholics, Protestants and Jews - who are certainly conservative in their outlook, but at the same time believe that someone who practices the outward trappings of a religion is good, regardless of what is actually in that person's heart. That's exactly the same problem - treating questions of mortality as being decided by surface actions, not by desires.
Oh, and after thinking about this a bit more - the view, enspoused by many conservative politicians, that the justice system should act as a "deterrant" - in other words, the view that it's possible/necessary (and sufficient) to scare people out of doing evil - is just another side of the same coin. This also treats the symptom, not the disease. You can see this a bit in the story as well - the narrator was clearly terrified of being re-erased. But did that stop him from killing? No, it just made him into a more careful killer.
Anyway, my point isn't to debate politics, so much as to point out that I don't think the mindset this story is parodying is one that is found only on one side of the political spectrum.
-
I liked this story because I found it to be a humorous parody of the liberal mindset which regards evil as a symptom rather than a disease. Rather than believe that evil deeds come from evil hearts, it is believed that all hearts are good and that evil is the result of external pressure caused by circumstances. Remove the circumstances, the logic goes, and the evil deeds will vanish and be replaced with good. This mindset essentially regards people as soulless puppets who will do no more and no less than what their environment programs them to do. This is false. ...
The root problem is not that this guy kills people. It's that he likes killing people. He's evil. Wiping his memory and giving him a new name did not change that, and it was only a matter of time before he rediscovered what he had been forced to forget. This is a wacky demonstration of the fact that changing a person's circumstance does absolutely no good if the evil that created that circumstance is not dealt with. As in the story, an externally-imposed change often worsens the very problem it was intended to fix.
Is your alternative explanation that he likes killing people because he was just born that way? Would your acceptable solution in this case to be to assume that the killer is inherently evil and lock him up and throw away the key? I suppose that by this argument juveniles who pull the wings off of flies or torture animals should be killed. After all, if they have unfixable evil hearts then why waste time and money trying to rehabilitate them and help them grow into better people? Let's just assume that they're evil, kill them now and save ourselves some trouble later.
Finally, I have a personal question. Is there any way I can determine if my one year old daughter has an evil heart? I want to teach her right from wrong, but that's an external stimulus and I'd not want to waste my time on an impossible task. Thanks for answering.
-
I probably shouldn't use the words "liberal" and "conservative" as they mean different things to different people in different places and different times. Lazy writing.
Chozart: I don't mean that certain people are hopeless cases, and I do not suggest that we need a method to figure out who is evil so we can preemptively get rid of them. (That would be evil.) I simply mean that a person cannot be changed from the outside. They can only be changed if they want to be. You can't make a bad person good with any program of rehabilitation or eduction if the person is not interested in changing. In this story we have the ultimate rehabilitation program, but no change of heart.
On the flip-side, if the heart is changed, behavior and attitude can change very quickly. If the hitman was repentant, he wouldn't need his memory erased.
It's very right and good for you to teach your daughter morals. It would demonstrate contempt for her if you didn't. But the ultimate responsibility for her heart and her behavior lies with her. You can teach her how to be good, but she will be making choices her whole life as to whether or not she will embrace your teaching. She has to internalize it for it to be effective.
Speaking of daughters, I'm writing this from the hospital where my wife, Jeanna, gave birth to our second girl Monday night. Clara Violet Hugo. 6 pounds 8 ounces. Eyes a purplish brown.
-
I simply mean that a person cannot be changed from the outside. They can only be changed if they want to be. You can't make a bad person good with any program of rehabilitation or eduction if the person is not interested in changing. In this story we have the ultimate rehabilitation program, but no change of heart.
On the flip-side, if the heart is changed, behavior and attitude can change very quickly. If the hitman was repentant, he wouldn't need his memory erased.
Speaking of daughters, I'm writing this from the hospital where my wife, Jeanna, gave birth to our second girl Monday night. Clara Violet Hugo. 6 pounds 8 ounces. Eyes a purplish brown.
I think Tweedy hits the nail on the head. Some people have no change of heart and the cycle continues. This isn't a great example but in my town the police report contains the same names week after week, month after month. It's a joke. Yeah, they are relatively minor crimes - possession, threats, assaults, etc., but you see so many repeat offenders that get the slap on the wrist and off they go again. You wonder what it will take to change them.
Congats Tweedy on the birth of your daughter! Great name.
-
Aaah, I see Mr Tweedy beat me to saying this story is all about the conflict between nature and nurture, the state believes killers are bred and not born, the story suggests it's the opposite that's true.
-
Aaah, I see Mr Tweedy beat me to saying this story is all about the conflict between nature and nurture, the state believes killers are bred and not born, the story suggests it's the opposite that's true.
Hmm... That's not what I meant. I meant that you can't make someone be good or evil by changing their circumstance. I didn't comment on how they come to be either.
-------------
The hooker was the ratting girlfriend? That's a great theory. That would tie it all together.
-
Aaah, I see Mr Tweedy beat me to saying this story is all about the conflict between nature and nurture, the state believes killers are bred and not born, the story suggests it's the opposite that's true.
Hmm... That's not what I meant. I meant that you can't make someone be good or evil by changing their circumstance. I didn't comment on how they come to be either.
I saw it this way too, and probably turned the sarcasm level up a tiny bit high in my response. Apologies for my tone and congrats on the birth of your daughter.
I could make the argument that in the story the character was given a reason to want to kill. Before erasure he killed for money, now it feels to me that it's out of anger at society for having taken away his old life. I wondered how much of the secrecy involved with who he was was really therapeutic and how much was supposed to be just punishment. In any event, it made sense that he'd hunt for his old personality and that he'd hold a major grudge for what he's lost.
While I agree with Mr. Tweedy that you can't force someone into good or bad choices, I do think one can set up circumstances in which it's easier for the person to develop good habits and even rediscover a moral character. The isolation the character in this story faced seemed to push him the opposite way.
-
The only way to change behavior is to change circumstances. Circumstances can be changed externally by altering the environment and the operating contingencies upon the behavior or internally by changing how we think about the behavior.
Take the example cited earlier in this thread about the same people engaging in the same [mostly petty] crimes again and again. Their current circumstances support this behavior, and unless something changes they will continue to engage in it. The authorities could change their response to the crimes and institute a "third strike" law, which may deter the behavior, or it might not. Unfortunately the penal system is not an effective agent of behavior change for a variety of reasons. On the other hand, a number of things could happen which would lead them to see the error of their ways, and change their behavior. Were they "evil" before they saw the error of their ways, and "good" afterwards? That's another discussion entirely.
None of this means that we aren't, or shouldn't be, accountable for our behavior. Accountability, or lack thereof, is an important part of our environment as well.
It does mean I am not willing to give up on rehabilitation.
-
The only way to change behavior is to change circumstances. Circumstances can be changed externally by altering the environment and the operating contingencies upon the behavior or internally by changing how we think about the behavior.
Take the example cited earlier in this thread about the same people engaging in the same [mostly petty] crimes again and again. Their current circumstances support this behavior, and unless something changes they will continue to engage in it. The authorities could change their response to the crimes and institute a "third strike" law, which may deter the behavior, or it might not. Unfortunately the penal system is not an effective agent of behavior change for a variety of reasons. On the other hand, a number of things could happen which would lead them to see the error of their ways, and change their behavior. Were they "evil" before they saw the error of their ways, and "good" afterwards? That's another discussion entirely.
So if I, for instance, beat my wife because I have a nasty temper and lash out in childish tantrums every time things don't go my way, what would the solution be? Do I need a better wife who doesn't get on my nerves, a better job that doesn't stress me and more money so I can feel like a winner? Or do I need to learn to respect my wife and control my temper? The first is a change of circumstance. The second is a change of heart.
There is one change of circumstance that could eliminate the problem. She can leave the scene, either by divorcing me of by dying. That change of circumstance will stop my beating her, but does it make me a better person? I think not. I'm still just as big a jerk as a I ever was, it's just that my means of demonstration has been removed.
Obviously changes in heart and changes in circumstance are intertwined. If my heart changes, my actions will change, which will change my circumstance. Similarly, something that happens to me can serve as a "wake up call" and convince me I need to change internally. But the two are remain distinct events.
-
We are coming at this issue from entirely different perspectives, Mr. Tweedy, and might as well be speaking different languages. I like to learn other languages, but I'm not always very good at teaching others my language.
I work with children and young adults with special needs. Many of them engage in very destructive behavior towards themselves and towards others. I have a lot of experience in changing their behavior by changing their circumstances, usually by teaching them to communicate more effectively, but also by analyzing the interaction between the environment and their behavior. I don't accept that "having a nasty temper and lashing out in childish tantrums every time things don't go their way" is a cause of behavior, rather, that is the behavior to be changed. And I have seen many times that by changing circumstances, the behavior can be changed, too.
Not by changing just any circumstance, though, it has to be the specific circumstances that cause and maintain the behavior. Going back to your example of the man who beats his wife, you are absolutely right, simply removing the wife [one way or another] from the man's life won't change his behavior, it merely takes away his opportunity to engage in it. As soon as he finds another person to victimize, he surely will. Only by finding the cause of the behavior and changing that will the behavior stop.
-
Well said, ajames.
Getting back to the story for a moment, it seems that there was no real attempt to fix or understand the actual reasons for the criminal's antisocial behaviour. Erasure felt more like the poster covering up a big hole in the wall; cosmetic, but not at all addressing the problem. The fact that the instutute performing the erasures explicitly stated that they would provide followup care only in the case of an absolute emergency made it feel to me that society wasn't trying so hard to help these people lead better lives. Just erase the memory, change the faces so nobody has to suffer the discomfort of seeing a fellow villain walking the streets, and hope for the best.
What makes me a bit uncomfortable with your ideas, Mr Tweedy, is that the phrase "change of heart" implies to me that you don't think outsiders can help effect a change or rehabilitation. Your example is a person who abuses his spouse because he feels inferior and lashes out at her. How should we as society treat this situation? Should we ignore it because we know change only comes from within and we can't really help? Punish the abuser in hopes that creating an unpleasant circumstance would shift the abuser's attitude enough to cause a change of heart? Try to teach the abuser to find a healthier outlet for his anger so he doesn't direct all his problems to his wife?
I think we'll all agree that ignoring the problem is not a solution. That leaves punishment or education - either of which is the application of external stimuli to change behaviour. The only question is which stimulus we choose. My question to you, Mr. Tweedy, is how you would choose to handle the hypothetical you presented to us.
-
You both seem to be misunderstanding me still. I do not mean that external factors are worthless. I mean that the person being rehabilitated must cooperate. You can't inflict values on a person like shooting drugs in their arm. A person must choose to submit to education, to be malleable. You can toss somebody a rope but you can't make them grab it. The wife-beating guy can be helped, but only if he chooses to be helped. In the story, the hitman did not choose to change; the state tries to inflict change on him without his cooperation. (For a brilliant essay on the subtleties of choice, read The Great Divorce (http://www.amazon.com/Great-Divorce-C-S-Lewis/dp/0006280560/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197035379&sr=8-1) by C.S. Lewis.)
I hope that clarifies what I mean. Education can obviously be very effective, but only if the heart is in a state to accept teaching. If a person is unwilling to change (if, for example, a person really likes being evil and is content to stay that way) then there must be a change of heart first before any rehabilitation can happen.
How would I deal with the situation? That question is very very deep with implications all over the place. I'm not going to try to tackle it thoroughly here, as doing so would require me to write a book explaining what I believe about the purpose and nature of the universe. In a small nutshell: I would introduce the guy to Jesus Christ, (pause for people to scoff) who offers both compelling reasons to change and ways for that change to happen. But even Jesus can't help someone who isn't interested.
-
Getting back to the story for a moment, it seems that there was no real attempt to fix or understand the actual reasons for the criminal's antisocial behaviour. Erasure felt more like the poster covering up a big hole in the wall; cosmetic, but not at all addressing the problem. The fact that the instutute performing the erasures explicitly stated that they would provide followup care only in the case of an absolute emergency made it feel to me that society wasn't trying so hard to help these people lead better lives. Just erase the memory, change the faces so nobody has to suffer the discomfort of seeing a fellow villain walking the streets, and hope for the best.
I agree - I had a lot of questions about how exactly this process was supposed to work. Though I suppose that could be intentional as we are seeing the world through the eyes of someone who has been erased.
Mr. Tweedy, I won't scoff at your solution if you don't scoff at mine - helping this man get control over his life through anger management and/or counseling or other techniques. I do agree that my solution won't work if he doesn't want to change, and even if he does want to change, it won't be easy, but that's where I'd start. Okay, I lied, I won't scoff at your solution even if you scoff at mine. Oh, and congratulations on the birth of your daughter! She's got the same birthday month as my youngest :)
-
Cool. :) Agrees all around. I don't scoff at your solution: Our solutions would almost certainly overlap.
-
I hope that clarifies what I mean. Education can obviously be very effective, but only if the heart is in a state to accept teaching. If a person is unwilling to change (if, for example, a person really likes being evil and is content to stay that way) then there must be a change of heart first before any rehabilitation can happen.
How would I deal with the situation? That question is very very deep with implications all over the place. I'm not going to try to tackle it thoroughly here, as doing so would require me to write a book explaining what I believe about the purpose and nature of the universe. In a small nutshell: I would introduce the guy to Jesus Christ, (pause for people to scoff) who offers both compelling reasons to change and ways for that change to happen. But even Jesus can't help someone who isn't interested.
(emphasis mine)
I'll admit that I've reached the point at which I honestly don't understand what point you were initially trying to make. To me, the idea of someone who "likes being evil" represents a cartoonish view of morality.
There are people who think that they're in the right even if they disagree with what you or I would say about the morality of their actions, but I hesitate to label anyone as simply evil. You started off by saying "Rather than believe that evil deeds come from evil hearts, it is believed that all hearts are good and that evil is the result of external pressure caused by circumstances." I find the idea of an "evil heart" to be a simplistic explanation that ignores the fact that there are probably reasons for someone's behaviour. Dismissing it as caused by an "evil heart" which needs to change ignores these root causes. The idea of education and counseling is to help the person change and give him reasons to change. If you agree with this then I don't quite understand what your point was in the first place. If you believe that society should try to rehabilitate criminals, how does that not conform to the "liberal mindset" that changes in cicumstance can effect changes in behavior?
I don't want to scoff at your beliefs, but do feel uneasy about them as a solution to crime. What would you do with a criminal who follows Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, or any other non-Christian belief system? Starting by telling someone that his cherished beliefs are wrong does not to me seem to be a good way to have him listen to you with an open mind. I don't want to make this an argument about religion, but singling out your belief system as a solution to a criminal mindset feels dismissive towards people with different religious beliefs or with none at all.
-
Are you saying you don't think there are people who like being evil? That seems naive. For instance, how do you suppose the hijackers on 9/11 felt in their last moments? Confused, scared, not sure what had brought them to this desperate point? Doubtful. I expect they were exhilarated, joyful, probably bursting with pride at the idea that thousands of lives were about to be snuffed out because of their actions. They felt heroic. Do you suppose every murderer or thief or rapist is remorseful? Do you suppose no slave trader sleeps at night? The killer in the story is nowhere close to remorse: He likes to kill people. Not everyone struggles with their demons. Many embrace them and find them pleasant company. There is a universe of difference between a sinner who is ashamed of his sin and one who is proud of it.
So, I'm not quite sure what your point is. If you think that there aren't plenty of people in this world who like their evil ways and would just as soon eat nails as change them, then I'm afraid you're quite naive. If that's not what you mean, then I'm not sure what you're getting that.
As for religion, I don't expect that I can get my point across concisely, so I will leave it at this: I believe my religion is true. If that makes sense to you, good, if not, I don't want to steer this thread completely away from the story by going into it.
-
Are you saying you don't think there are people who like being evil? That seems naive. For instance, how do you suppose the hijackers on 9/11 felt in their last moments? ....
So, I'm not quite sure what your point is. If you think that there aren't plenty of people in this world who like their evil ways and would just as soon eat nails as change them, then I'm afraid you're quite naive. If that's not what you mean, then I'm not sure what you're getting that.
As for religion, I don't expect that I can get my point across concisely, so I will leave it at this: I believe my religion is true. If that makes sense to you, good, if not, I don't want to steer this thread completely away from the story by going into it.
We seem to have two discussions going on here, so I'll try and handle them one at a time. I'll start off by saying that I do respect you and your opinions, even though I disagree.
I don't know whether or not everyone wrestles with their demons or not, but I do believe that people make choices for reasons that, to them, seem reasonable, logical, and moral. I'm not a moral relativist who believes that any one definition of right and wrong is as good as any other, but I do believe that we need to understand people's motivations in order to help prevent immoral acts in the future - from them or from others.
The 9/11 hijackers are actually an example of which I was thinking. I am a New Yorker and, while I didn't know anyone killed in the attacks, I did know people who worked in neighboring buildings, was at site myself a couple of days after the attacks, and worked in a situation in which many of my peers and co-workers were fearing further attacks. The whole event felt very personal to me. That being said, I don't think it accomplishes anything to say that it was an act of "evil". I believe that Osama bin Laden had reasons for what he did that made perfect sense and were perfectly moral in his world view. Part of it is misguidedness, part provocation, and part pure religious fervor. Part was certainly the idea that a sneak attack against soft civilian targers was the only way he COULD hurt such a militarillly superior enemy.
None of the excuses the 9/11 attacks, but it does set a framework in which the government could work to either sell our soldier's presence on the Arabian peninsula as a service to Islamic peoples or to get out of there, where we could reach out to enemies in a way to assuage their fears, etc. These ideas may or may not work, but they would be constructive ideas. To label the hijackers as "evil" as if we were attacked by Sauron or Voldemort denies the existence of reasoning and makes it that much harder to work for a solution. Why was the killer in the story a killer? Was he economically disadvantaged? Surrounded by career criminals from a young age? Feel powerless for some other reason? To say that he killed people because he liked killing people strikes me as reductive. It's more constructive to look for the reason he liked killing people. In short, my point isn't that there aren't people who wrestle with their choices, it's that only the very rare true sociopath sees himself as evil.
So far as your religion is concerned, I understand that you believe it to be true. Everyone else with a religion thinks theirs is true, and atheists think they're all equally false. With all equally unproven and unprovable (with the possible exception of atheism, but that's another discussion), I think it unfair to expect others to accept your belief as a cure for society's ills.
-
Now I'm even more confused. You don't think Sauron and Voldemort were reasoning free agents with complex motives? Voldemort has a very complex backstory that provides him with lots of motives. That doesn't mean he isn't evil. Everyone has some reason for doing what they do. If your standard for calling something evil is that it must be utterly purposeless and irrational, then you are essentially denying the concept.
Hell, Satan has a motive: He couldn't stand playing second fiddle to God. By your criteria even he wouldn't qualify as evil because he has a reason for his actions that makes sense and seems right to him. (Those who don't believe in Satan, take that as a literary allusion.)
Are you saying you don't believe there is such a thing as evil, or am I not understanding you?
-
I find this discussion fascinating. In my criminal law class, we spent several weeks on the philosophy of punishment, and Mr. Tweedy seems to be taking a position that wasn't really considered. We grouped theories of punishment into two basic sets: retributivist and consequentialist.The former see punishment as good when it is deserved, the latter see it as good when it will achieve good effects. Mr. Tweedy seems to be dismissing modes of punishment designed to correct the behavior of a criminal if these methods don't account for some change of heart. My initial response to this position is that no system can 'look into a person's heart' and see their true motives. There have been plenty of false conversions throughout history. At the same time, should society really care about a person's inner being if their behavior conforms to acceptable norms?
I found the story disturbing on a couple of levels. The first was the nature of the punishment. Erasing someone's existence and restricting any ability to access the past seems pretty totalitarian. Re-education, from 1984 to A Clockwork Orange, always sends chills up my spine. The second was the quite plausible descent into psychotic blood lust by a narrator who seemed quite rational. In my mind, these are two real strengths of the story. Anytime an author creates a conflict where both sides are very reasonably in the wrong and creates a tension in the reader's mind he has achieved an element of great literature.
-
I confess that I never got far enough into the Harry Potter books to get Voldermort's backstory, so I'll stand corrected on that one. So far as I can tell from my reading of Lord of the Rings, Sauron's primary motivation was to drive the plot.
My point is that the label "evil" is not a useful one, especially in discussion of criminals. Using it ends the conversation about motivation and means to rehabilitation. This is if you take "evil" to mean that something is inherently wrong with someone that makes them do bad things and that they are unfixable. If by "evil" you mean that one's motives are outside of societies norms and that it is possible, through education, counseling, punishment, or whatever to rehabilitate them then we're splitting hairs and differ only in semantics.
That's probably what gets back to my not quite understanding your initial point about "evil" in the first place. You started off citing what you call a liberal fallacy that evil is a symptom and not a disease and that it's not possible to change a criminal through outside forces. Your later posts seem to indicate that you believe that society can, at the very least, create circumstances conducive to change. I think we've reached the point at which we have a distinction without much of a difference and are merely splitting hairs between words.
I agree with your point, qwints, that it's neither easy nor desirable to "look into a person's heart". My readind of the story is that part of the criminal's motive for recidivism is his chafing against the mental bonds of his erasure. He kills people not only because he is still the killer he once was, but also because of a deep seated anger at the society for having taken away from him his very identity.
-
So far as I can tell from my reading of Lord of the Rings, Sauron's primary motivation was to drive the plot.
LOL :D There's a bit more to Sauron if you read the Silmarilion, but he definitely isn't the most complex character in literature.
That's probably what gets back to my not quite understanding your initial point about "evil" in the first place. You started off citing what you call a liberal fallacy that evil is a symptom and not a disease and that it's not possible to change a criminal through outside forces. Your later posts seem to indicate that you believe that society can, at the very least, create circumstances conducive to change. I think we've reached the point at which we have a distinction without much of a difference and are merely splitting hairs between words.
Do you make any distinction between these two (completely plausible) people?
Joe has a daughter with leukemia and no money. He tries to earn the money to pay for treatments, but he can't land a job that makes enough money or has the right benefits. In desperation, he takes a gun to the local Savings and Loan and holds it up. As he is leaving, the cops show up. Shots are exchanged, and Joe fatally shoots one of them during a successful getaway. Joe is heartbroken because of what he's done, and the only reason he doesn't turn himself in and face judgement is that he doesn't want to leave his kid with no family.
Bob has a neighbor who he considers to be "trash." This neighbor is the wrong social class, wrong skin color and throws the wrong kind of parties. Bob decides the most straightforward solution to this problem is to slip some poison into the neighbor's food, which he does one day while the neighbor is out of town. His plan works and the neighbor dies. Bob pats himself on the back for having "taken out the trash" and spends the rest of his life feeling smug about it.
Both these people are murderers who got away with their crimes. Are they moral equals? If not, what's the difference?
Mr. Tweedy seems to be taking a position that wasn't really considered. We grouped theories of punishment into two basic sets: retributivist and consequentialist.The former see punishment as good when it is deserved, the latter see it as good when it will achieve good effects. Mr. Tweedy seems to be dismissing modes of punishment designed to correct the behavior of a criminal if these methods don't account for some change of heart. My initial response to this position is that no system can 'look into a person's heart' and see their true motives. There have been plenty of false conversions throughout history. At the same time, should society really care about a person's inner being if their behavior conforms to acceptable norms?
I think I'd fall on the "retributivist" side (although I've never heard that term before and am not sure). The point of punishment is not to correct behavior or even to deter future crime. Punishment is primarily as a means of social communication. It's how a society says "this is unacceptable," and the degree of punishment indicates the degree of society's loathing. Rehabilitation is a different idea that isn't necessarily associated with punishment at all.
A person can (and should) be punished regardless of whether or not they have a change of heart. Punishment is externally imposed. Rehabilitation can occur only if there is a change of heart. Rehabilitation requires internal impetus.
-
So far as I can tell from my reading of Lord of the Rings, Sauron's primary motivation was to drive the plot.
LOL :D There's a bit more to Sauron if you read the Silmarilion, but he definitely isn't the most complex character in literature.
Given the depth and consideration Tolkien gave to Melkor's character, I'd bet there was a lot more to the story of Melkor's protege that Tolkien never put down on paper [or was published, at least].
As for the discussion of punishment, Mr. Tweedy you and I come from such diametrically opposed viewpoints that I am happy to rest on the momentary bit of agreement we shared earlier. I believe in radical behaviorism, and so we don't share a common language on the key terms of this discussion such as self, good, evil, punishment. Personally, I don't think you've given the environment enough consideration for its role in changing behavior, including patterns of behavior. But I think the best we can hope for in this forum is to agree to disagree. Which is fine with me.
Once again, though, the message boards have helped me to appreciate a story more than when I first heard it. Thanks to all who participated!
-
Radical behaviorism? By that do you mean that we have no free will and are simply a sum of environmental influences? (For instance, would you say that my belief in free will is a reaction to external conditioning?) If so, then you hold the exact belief that I think the story was satirizing.
-
Radical behaviorism? By that do you mean that we have no free will and are simply a sum of environmental influences? (For instance, would you say that my belief in free will is a reaction to external conditioning?) If so, then you hold the exact belief that I think the story was satirizing.
If Mike Resnick was satirizing radical behaviorism, or any form of behaviorism, he didn't do his homework. If so he wouldn't be the first to do that, but I don't think he was.
As for the question of free will, it is a bit more complicated than you presented. While it is a common belief that radical behaviorists don't believe in free will, and Skinner did write as much earlier in his career, his later writings are less deterministic in nature on the topic and leave the door open for free will, or at the very least a form of free will.
What is safe to say is that for the radical behaviorist the individual and the environment are interconnected in such a way that it is meaningless to talk about the one without the other. While the environment and its influences are critical to understanding human behavior, to say that "we are simply a sum of environmental influences" takes this too far, as it fully accounts for the environment [almost] but doesn't account for the "we" in the environment. [This is actually very similar to the way the self is viewed in zen, as I understand zen.] Human behavior is not simply the result of a calculation of environmental influences input on one side and our behavior output on the other. Nor is it the result of some isolated self acting on the environment not a part of the environment.
Now that I've made things as clear as mud, probably, you can see why I don't think we'll reach a consensus on this issue.
-
Now I'm confused again. The individual and the environment are connected to the point where it is impossible to talk about one without talking about the other. Right. That seems obvious and it doesn't contradict my view at all.
What are we disagreeing about?
Obviously, environment has a huge role in shaping what we are like (I speak English because I was born in America), but I can choose to learn German if I want to. I want to be a writer, so I write. My environment does not compel me to write: I choose to, and thus change my environment. It goes both ways. It's dynamic.
My primary point was that a person cannot be forced to change against their will. If I am pleased by any aspect of myself, if I embrace it as part of my identity, if I like being the way I am, then you can't do anything to me to change it. For instance, my religion. You can't make me not be a Christian by subjecting me to calculated stimuli. You can't put me through a program that will wash it out of me. I can cease to be a Christian if I choose to, but you can't force that change on me. A person has to want to be changed. They must cooperate.
If a drunk wants to stop drinking, then they can be helped. If a drunk likes being a drunk, then there is absolutely nothing you can do for him and any program you can think of will be an absolute waste of time. There must be an internal desire to change. That is what I mean be a change of heart.
Do you disagree with that? If not, then we are in agreement.
-
Immanuel Kant's The Metaphysical Elements of Justice is one of the first works to lay out retributivism. In its most absolute form it might be represented by the claim that, "Even if a civil society resolved to dissolve itself ... the last murderer lying in prison ought to be executed." In other words, the reason for punishment does not lie in its effects.
I think I'd fall on the "retributivist" side (although I've never heard that term before and am not sure). The point of punishment is not to correct behavior or even to deter future crime. Punishment is primarily as a means of social communication. It's how a society says "this is unacceptable," and the degree of punishment indicates the degree of society's loathing. Rehabilitation is a different idea that isn't necessarily associated with punishment at all.
A person can (and should) be punished regardless of whether or not they have a change of heart. Punishment is externally imposed. Rehabilitation can occur only if there is a change of heart. Rehabilitation requires internal impetus.
The idea you suggest here sounds like the expressive theory of punishment. This might be represented by the claim "those persons who rationally resolve to hurt others in certain fundamental respects should be punished in order that they, and others, can see the moral significance of their actions." (Professor Samuel Pillsbury of Loyola Law School) In other words, punishment is a means of denouncing crimes against society. This seems to match how you feel about punishment. That said, it is not necessary to match your views with theories expressed in law reviews to see your basic moral intuitions about how society should treat criminals
You seem to fundamentally believe in an inner self which is independent of the environment and which must consciously participate for rehabilitation to occur. I feel that you are missing the distinction between someone who is freely choosing to keep drinking and someone who is programmed by his environment to need to drink. While it doesn't seem to matter for the story whether the narrator was a natural born killer or warped by his development, Resnick does seem to clearly portray someone who is driven to kill by something completely separate from his present environment.
-
Now I'm even more confused. You don't think Sauron and Voldemort were reasoning free agents with complex motives? Voldemort has a very complex backstory that provides him with lots of motives. That doesn't mean he isn't evil. Everyone has some reason for doing what they do. If your standard for calling something evil is that it must be utterly purposeless and irrational, then you are essentially denying the concept.
Going off-topic, Voldemort never has any motive for being bad, he has the misfortune of having the bad Slytherin genes via his Mum, the bad upper-class genes of his father and being brought up working-class in the orphanage. I think J.K. was trying to draw a clumsy parallel between his growing up without parents and Harry's, he is after all the only baddie who neither has an evil sounding name or looks ugly until he chooses them for himself. After all, does Voldemort have any plans beyond killing anyone, magic or Muggle, that falls across his path?
Similarly Sauron has no purpose other than to be the embodiment of evil in Middle-Earth. Tolkien seems to be more interested in what happens when a variety of characters are offered the apple and typically the answer is to get rid of the temptation in the hopes that we will be allowed to return to the Garden, which is impossible because it's too late to unlearn what we learnt by biting into the apple the first time round.
I also disagree with the conclusion Mr Tweedy draws in the first post. We have to assume that this treatment has been used for many, many other people, as our narrator tells us, and that he is the first one it's broken down on. So, it's already doing better than most Ex-Gay Ministeries. A success rate of 99% is pretty good. So, there's a lot of people who can be 'stopped' from 'being evil'. Secondly, he doesn't start killing again until he starts getting some recall of his previous life, in the form of the mystery voice (I haven't listened again to the story, so might have got confused in the order there) Also, if the Government hadn't left a blank in his memory rather than fill it in with false ones, wouldn't he have then accepted them rather than try to discover what he did?
-
Going back to Mr. Tweedy's example of two individuals, the claim seems to be that behavior is less important than the inner self perpetuating that behavior. I think there are two ways to refute the implied argument. First, the father of the sick daughter is not as blameless as might first appear. The brief "shots were exchanged" neglects to discuss why this Robin Hood decided to open fire. There are all kinds of factors which might affect the morality of that action. Second, both of these men are equally dangerous to society. Both are willing to break a very basic rule of society when their situation compels them to. The true difference, of course, lies in their motivations. A desire to help family is obviously morally superior to hatred of another, but there is no reason to identify these as attributes chosen by some free-will owning self instead of attributes imparted by the environment and biology.
Since I am using this forum as a break from studying for my criminal law examine, the dad committed capital murder (commonly known as the felony murder rule) and would almost certainly get life without parole in Texas while the poisoner committed a first degree felony murder which carries a sentence of five to ninety-nine years to be decided by the convicted felon's choice of judge or jury.
-
Since I am using this forum as a break from studying for my criminal law examine, the dad committed capital murder (commonly known as the felony murder rule) and would almost certainly get life without parole in Texas while the poisoner committed a first degree felony murder which carries a sentence of five to ninety-nine years to be decided by the convicted felon's choice of judge or jury.
If this had happened in a country with "European Style Socialized Medicine" (to use the Republican phrase), the father would have gone to the doctor gotten the perscription and had the perscription filled for about $15. He wouldn't have needed to break the law at all. But that is a whole other thread.
-
Now I'm even more confused. You don't think Sauron and Voldemort were reasoning free agents with complex motives? Voldemort has a very complex backstory that provides him with lots of motives. That doesn't mean he isn't evil. Everyone has some reason for doing what they do. If your standard for calling something evil is that it must be utterly purposeless and irrational, then you are essentially denying the concept.
Going off-topic, Voldemort never has any motive for being bad, he has the misfortune of having the bad Slytherin genes via his Mum, the bad upper-class genes of his father and being brought up working-class in the orphanage. I think J.K. was trying to draw a clumsy parallel between his growing up without parents and Harry's, he is after all the only baddie who neither has an evil sounding name or looks ugly until he chooses them for himself. After all, does Voldemort have any plans beyond killing anyone, magic or Muggle, that falls across his path?
That's not a particularly fair interpretation of the story, I think. Voldermort had plenty of reason to be upset and angry and, as the book makes it clear, scared. He ends up going on a path dedicated to making sure no-one has power over him, and to destory anyone and anything that reminds him of his family, especially his father. He is motivated, more than anything else, by fear and self-hatred. The books (esp. Book 6) make it amply clear that it was his *choices*, not his background, that made him turn evil, not his genetics. You can argue with how clumsy and simplistic Rowling's portrayal of this story is - and I would agree that it's a bit of both - but I think the intention is very different from what you describe, and it is pretty clearly signposted by having Dumbledore explain this to Harry.
-
Do you make any distinction between these two (completely plausible) people?
Joe has a daughter with leukemia and no money. He tries to earn the money to pay for treatments, but he can't land a job that makes enough money or has the right benefits. In desperation, he takes a gun to the local Savings and Loan and holds it up. As he is leaving, the cops show up. Shots are exchanged, and Joe fatally shoots one of them during a successful getaway. Joe is heartbroken because of what he's done, and the only reason he doesn't turn himself in and face judgement is that he doesn't want to leave his kid with no family.
Bob has a neighbor who he considers to be "trash." This neighbor is the wrong social class, wrong skin color and throws the wrong kind of parties. Bob decides the most straightforward solution to this problem is to slip some poison into the neighbor's food, which he does one day while the neighbor is out of town. His plan works and the neighbor dies. Bob pats himself on the back for having "taken out the trash" and spends the rest of his life feeling smug about it.
I think I'd fall on the "retributivist" side (although I've never heard that term before and am not sure). The point of punishment is not to correct behavior or even to deter future crime. Punishment is primarily as a means of social communication. It's how a society says "this is unacceptable," and the degree of punishment indicates the degree of society's loathing. Rehabilitation is a different idea that isn't necessarily associated with punishment at all.
A person can (and should) be punished regardless of whether or not they have a change of heart. Punishment is externally imposed. Rehabilitation can occur only if there is a change of heart. Rehabilitation requires internal impetus.
So much here to respond to, as well as some great points from others. Very briefly, I do see a difference between your two hypotheticals, but see neither of them as behaving morally. The father who killed a police officer at a robbery made the choice that his daughter's life is worth more than someone else's. This viewpoint can lead him to continue to treat other people unfairly or unethically so long as doing so benefits him or his offspring. If everyone behaved like that we'd have a lawless, mistrustful, parochial society. The racially motivated killer is dangerous because his kind of crimes tend to split society apart along racial or religious lines, fostering mistrust and further racism. It's for reasons like this that we have bias-crime laws. Both deserve punishment, but I would hope that either or both could be rehabilitated. I'd consider the failure to pay for a citizen's leukemia medicine to be a crime on society's part but that , as Russel Nash said, is a different thread.
So far as the question of punishment versus rehabilitation is concerned, I lean further towards the idea of rehabilitation than you do. I suspect that we'll have to accept this as a disagreement. One question I'd ask you is how you can justify releasing a criminal back to society without a serious attempt at rehabilitation? If someone committed a crime and society takes temporary control of some degrees of that person's freedom, would it not be in everybody's interest for society to try to create a situation in which that person could become productive and law-abiding in the future?
As a final note, I think the question of free will is bordering on metaphysics and, for me, has little practical implication. Unless I'm misreading you, Mr. Tweedy, you believe in an intangible soul in which the "self" resides. I, on the other hand, believe that there is a physical mechanism for everything. What we see as "self" is an effect of the interactions between our bodies and the environment. Greater understanding of these interactions can lead to greater understanding of self, of psychology, and perhaps better treatments for mental illness. So far as I can tell, belief in an intangible self is a dead-end that leads to no greater understanding. As such, I don't see it as a useful idea in solving problems of crime and punishment.
-
My primary point was that a person cannot be forced to change against their will. If I am pleased by any aspect of myself, if I embrace it as part of my identity, if I like being the way I am, then you can't do anything to me to change it. For instance, my religion. You can't make me not be a Christian by subjecting me to calculated stimuli. You can't put me through a program that will wash it out of me. I can cease to be a Christian if I choose to, but you can't force that change on me. A person has to want to be changed. They must cooperate.
If a drunk wants to stop drinking, then they can be helped. If a drunk likes being a drunk, then there is absolutely nothing you can do for him and any program you can think of will be an absolute waste of time. There must be an internal desire to change. That is what I mean be a change of heart.
Do you disagree with that? If not, then we are in agreement.
[Some liberal snipping at the beginning of your quote; pun half-intended ;)]
We agree in as far as someone who actively resists change will probably find a way to thwart the efforts at change directed towards him/her. In terms of exactly what a change of heart is, and where it comes from, we do not agree. A large part of our difference would be metaphysical - what is environment and what is self.
As a final note, I think the question of free will is bordering on metaphysics and, for me, has little practical implication. Unless I'm misreading you, Mr. Tweedy, you believe in an intangible soul in which the "self" resides. I, on the other hand, believe that there is a physical mechanism for everything. What we see as "self" is an effect of the interactions between our bodies and the environment. Greater understanding of these interactions can lead to greater understanding of self, of psychology, and perhaps better treatments for mental illness. So far as I can tell, belief in an intangible self is a dead-end that leads to no greater understanding. As such, I don't see it as a useful idea in solving problems of crime and punishment.
Minor quibble about the 'physical mechanism' analogy: I'd advocate in favor of a more complex system - an interconnected web, say, versus a causal chain that is typically associated with mechanistic systems. But that is getting even more metaphysical...
-
Random responses. More later (maybe, I'm back at work now).
My leukemia thing was purely hypothetical. As far as I know, that situation would not exist in the United States: Hospitals are required to provide life-saving care, even if the recipient cannot pay (I think). The scenario is in a fictitious country. And the dad shoots to kill on purpose, so he can get away.
When we talk about "environment" we are primarily talking about persons, not about trees and mountains etc. My environment is the people I interact with and the results of their actions. Environment is the sum of the choices of many individuals. Hence, I would say that environment itself is a product of free will.
I have no idea if the soul exists or not, and I don't think the question is ultimately relevant. I am not aware of any aspect of human behavior or personality that cannot be attributed to a physical cause.
-
Environment is the sum of the choices of many individuals. Hence, I would say that environment itself is a product of free will.
I have no idea if the soul exists or not, and I don't think the question is ultimately relevant. I am not aware of any aspect of human behavior or personality that cannot be attributed to a physical cause.
Free will, as I would define it, is something that cannot be attributed to a physical cause, but that is a question of metaphysics.
I think Czhorat makes the very good point that, although rehabilitation may be difficult or impossible, it is still something the state should try to achieve. As I see it, the fundamental difference of opinion in this discussion is whether such efforts are capable of effecting change on Mr. Tweedy's inner self. In other words, can external influences make a drunk who like to drink stop liking to drink? My opinion is that such an attitudinal change is possible and that cognitive behavioral therapy is an effective means of doing so.
-
When we talk about "environment" we are primarily talking about persons, not about trees and mountains etc. My environment is the people I interact with and the results of their actions. Environment is the sum of the choices of many individuals. Hence, I would say that environment itself is a product of free will.
You do have a way with words, Mr. Tweedy. I don't agree with what you said, but you said it well.
When I speak of environment I do mean everything, and when I speak of it in terms of explaining behavior I am including anything that is relevant [as far as I can tell] to that explanation. By narrowing the environment to choices people make, you ignore other [in my opinion] relevant factors. Sometimes people shovel the driveway more because snow fell during the night, and less because of the choices they and other people make.
-
We have to assume that this treatment has been used for many, many other people, as our narrator tells us, and that he is the first one it's broken down on.
In the story, the state doesn't find out that he has started killing again. He is able to keep his hobby a secret for the first two kills, and presumably will be able to keep it a secret for a long while to come. Hence, it's possible that there have been many breakdowns, but all of them are clever enough to not get caught. Part of my original point was that the state's attempt to rehabilitate had actually made the killer more dangerous by giving him accountant skills in addition to his killer skills.
Also, if the Government hadn't left a blank in his memory rather than fill it in with false ones, wouldn't he have then accepted them rather than try to discover what he did?
That would be no more nor less than the death penalty. If you destroy my mind and replace is with a new one, then I am dead in every practical sense.
When I speak of environment I do mean everything, and when I speak of it in terms of explaining behavior I am including anything that is relevant [as far as I can tell] to that explanation. By narrowing the environment to choices people make, you ignore other [in my opinion] relevant factors. Sometimes people shovel the driveway more because snow fell during the night, and less because of the choices they and other people make.
If we were talking about behavior in a general sense, you would of course be correct. People who live in the jungle must by necessity have a different culture from those who live on the tundra, etc.
But we aren't talking about general behavior, we're talking about good and evil. For instance, every culture has means of showing hospitality, whether with a wreath of flowers or with a hot drink or with a smack on the ass (as I observed in jock subculture at high school), and all of these methods are good because hospitality is good. Similarly, every culture has a means of belittling people, whether with flying rocks or a turned back or a smack on the ass (anywhere other than the jock subculture), and all of these are bad because belittlement is bad.
When we talk about good and evil, we aren't talking about whether people where cravats or kimonos; we're talking about the attitudes with which people regard each other and the actions which result from those attitudes. Attitudes toward fellow humans are not taught to us by nature. They are of human origin. I can teach my daughters to be cruel or kind whether I live in a palace or in a log cabin. Their moral environment is what I, as their father, do and say. The physical circumstance in which I act and speak is of little importance. This is why I say that environment is created by free will.
-
Mr. Tweedy,
I don't think that anyone would disagree with the proposition that actions have different meanings in different cultures, but you seem dismiss the possibility that who one belittles or praises is itself culturally determined. In other words, society expects certain behaviors of us in certain context and people, at least to some extent, internalize those expectations. Are your daughters truly free to choose their actions when you can teach them to be cruel or to be kind? And, if you can form behaviors in the first place, why can't another change someone's behaviors (e.g. rehabilitate them) later on?
I think it is very important to distinguish between societally desirable and undesirable actions and good and evil people. Resnick seemed to describe something internal which is independent of its immediate environment and divorced from its memories, but whether the inner voice is of nature or nurture is left to the reader. I am willing to admit the possibility that there exist people who are so deranged that they can never be a productive part of society (which could be the moral of the story), but I believe they are the exception and not the rule. Most criminals could be reformed given the correct situation.
-
Mr. Tweedy, I'll concede your point that not everything in the environment [trees etc] possibly relevant to behavior need be taken into consideration when accounting for social behavior. I have to, given something I read today from a radical behaviorist, Philip Hineline, on the matter.
First your statement [again]:
When we talk about "environment" we are primarily talking about persons, not about trees and mountains etc. My environment is the people I interact with and the results of their actions. Environment is the sum of the choices of many individuals. Hence, I would say that environment itself is a product of free will.
Now Hineline: "Social behavior is also treated as not different in kind from other behavior. By definition, organisms constitute salient parts of each others' environments. The synergistic interaction between social behavior and its environment can be extremely dynamic [...] but for a radical behaviorist this dynamism is to be understood through separate but simultaneous analyses of the behavior of the organisms that are involved."
I was rather struck with the similarities, though the differences are important, too. From your statement, it is not many steps to saying the discussion is about good and evil, right and wrong, moral environments. Freewill, writ large, is at the core of the social environment, therefore the discussion is about choices, moral ones, and good and evil.
From my perspective, good and evil need not enter the discussion and would not be a component of Hineline's analysis of social behavior. As Hineline said, social behavior is not different in kind from other forms of behavior. We may get upset at the ice when we slip on it and hurt ourselves, we may even hit it and curse it. We don't call it evil, though. Good and evil are descriptions we give behavior, of course, not things [unless we are imparting intelligence on these things], and if a person behaves a certain way reliably, we will also say that the person is good, or evil, or has a good heart, or an evil one. But describing behavior or patterns of behavior as good or evil doesn't get us any closer to determining the cause of the behavior. Do I commit crimes because I am a bad man, or am I a bad man because I commit crimes? Aren't there other reasons I might commit a crime [Ah, but if I give in to these other reasons, I am still a bad man, therefore the reason I commit the crime is still that I am bad]. In determining the cause of social behavior, I look for other explanations. If I can find them, and in most cases I suggest they can be found, I can probably do something about the behavior. Now, if I find someone who is dead-set against changing their ways, for whatever reason, [for example, someone like the character of Mr. Resnick's story, who takes pleasure in killing], my task is clearly a difficult one.
For the record, although I don't think in terms of good and evil in determining the cause of behavior, I do believe people are, and should be, accountable for their behavior.
-
But describing behavior or patterns of behavior as good or evil doesn't get us any closer to determining the cause of the behavior. Do I commit crimes because I am a bad man, or am I a bad man because I commit crimes? Aren't there other reasons I might commit a crime [Ah, but if I give in to these other reasons, I am still a bad man, therefore the reason I commit the crime is still that I am bad]. In determining the cause of social behavior, I look for other explanations. If I can find them, and in most cases I suggest they can be found, I can probably do something about the behavior. Now, if I find someone who is dead-set against changing their ways, for whatever reason, [for example, someone like the character of Mr. Resnick's story, who takes pleasure in killing], my task is clearly a difficult one.
Thank you, ajames. This sums up one of the points I've been trying to make this whole thread. The definitions of "good" and "evil" aren't even static enough to be easilly defined in absolute terms. There was a time not too long ago, for instance, in which it would have been acceptable for me to physically attack my wife or kid in order to insure their proper behaviour. In America a couple centuries ago I could even purchase some human beings from another place and smack them around. These actions today would be considered "evil". If one doesn't believe in absolute evil, what does that do to the premise with which you started this thread, Mr. Tweedy? Do you still see the story the same way, or were you using it to make your own comment about what you see as an incorrect "liberal mindset".
-
The "change of heart" I refer is the move from desiring evil (an evil heart) to desiring good (a good heart), a move from a desire to resist change to a desire to cooperate in it.
Can external influence encourage a person to make such a change? Absolutely! But it can only encourage. The necessary change of heart is ultimately up to the individual, and no one else can force them to change. (Unless, of course, you find a way to totally abolish the person's will through some kind of brainwashing, which would be, I think, far crueler than simply killing them.)
I think this is works as a plausible model for both the story and life, but I don't think it's a very useful one. Although I disagree with the proposition that some absolute moral standard exists to define good and evil, I think we all agree that efforts at rehabilitation require some amount of cooperation. I think Ajames is correct, however, when he says that the concept of a good or evil heart cannot explain causation. That's not to say that there exists a model which can describe a 1:1 correlation between a person's biology and development and their behavior, but there are some which do find correlations between people's environment and their actions.
I guess the point I want to make is you have to go beyond simply saying:
Person x did bad things because he is a bad person.
If he became a good person, then he wouldn't do bad things.
I'm pretty sure that's not what you're saying Mr. Tweedy, but I can't see the difference.
-
Well, actually, that's exactly what I'm saying. It is a simplification, of course, but it is the underlying bones that give shape to all the complex meat on surface.
I doubt you'll understand what I mean by that, though. You'll think I have in mind some cartoonish image of people with halos and people with horns, who are either all bad or all good, nothing but saints and monsters.
Here: An analogy that might help explain it:
Picture a very long road between point E (Eville) and point G (Goodsborough). This is a two-way road, with cars going both directions, some toward G and some toward E. None of the cars has yet reached its destination, and they are all moving different speeds, but they are all facing one way or the other. Because of various circumstances, the cars start off at random points along the road, and they all encounter various obstacles that impede their progress, and their cars have various speeds. Over these things the driver has no control. But the thing he can control (and is responsible to control) is which direction he will drive in.
Someone who starts off at E may have a very long and difficult journey to G, and he might not get very far or very fast, but he is still pointed the right way, and that is the crucial factor. Similarly, someone might start out at G can drive full throttle towards E. A person pointed at G can be helped toward it, even if the distance is great, but a person pointed at E cannot be helped unless they turn their car around. It is the destination toward which a person is driving, not the precise position along the road, that determines whether they are good or evil.
That's not a perfect analogy, but it's the best thing I could think of off the cuff. (It is also a very Christian idea, and I'm not sure it would make sense outside that context.) Anyway...
-
That's not a bad analogy at all, Mr. Tweedy. I'd probably add to it that sometimes the road takes crazy turns and long loops, and the cars are round saucers with tinted windows so that other people can't tell which way you are pointing, and wild storms often blow over the road and turn you around until sometimes you don't even know which direction you are facing, and sometimes there's no road and you are four-wheeling it, and a bunch of other stuff, too. But that's me.
Again, though, I don't see this discussion as about good and evil, but I can see where you are coming from and I don't think I'll be convincing you to see it my way, or vice versa. I'm thankful for the opportunity to discuss our differences here, as it did help me clarify some of my ideas and got me thinking about some things I hadn't thought about in awhile. The observations from qwints and czhorat and others were helpful in this regard, too.
-
But just saying that there are degrees of good and evil doesn't help. To be useful, a model for describing behavior has to predict behavior in given circumstances or at least be able to give a reasonable explanation for why someone did something.
But describing behavior or patterns of behavior as good or evil doesn't get us any closer to determining the cause of the behavior. ... In determining the cause of social behavior, I look for other explanations. If I can find them, and in most cases I suggest they can be found, I can probably do something about the behavior. Now, if I find someone who is dead-set against changing their ways, for whatever reason, [for example, someone like the character of Mr. Resnick's story, who takes pleasure in killing], my task is clearly a difficult one.
For the record, although I don't think in terms of good and evil in determining the cause of behavior, I do believe people are, and should be, accountable for their behavior.
The point ajames made earlier remains clear, and unless we try to understand the kinds of motivations leading a driver to point his car in either direction, we abandon the possibility of understanding other people's decision making. Society cannot be content to write off the people heading in the wrong direction.
If we understand why people commit crimes, we can prevent some from doing so again. Certainly not all, but we can reform some if we at least try.
-
But just saying that there are degrees of good and evil doesn't help. To be useful, a model for describing behavior has to predict behavior in given circumstances or at least be able to give a reasonable explanation for why someone did something.
But describing behavior or patterns of behavior as good or evil doesn't get us any closer to determining the cause of the behavior. ... In determining the cause of social behavior, I look for other explanations. If I can find them, and in most cases I suggest they can be found, I can probably do something about the behavior. Now, if I find someone who is dead-set against changing their ways, for whatever reason, [for example, someone like the character of Mr. Resnick's story, who takes pleasure in killing], my task is clearly a difficult one.
For the record, although I don't think in terms of good and evil in determining the cause of behavior, I do believe people are, and should be, accountable for their behavior.
The point ajames made earlier remains clear, and unless we try to understand the kinds of motivations leading a driver to point his car in either direction, we abandon the possibility of understanding other people's decision making. Society cannot be content to write off the people heading in the wrong direction.
If we understand why people commit crimes, we can prevent some from doing so again. Certainly not all, but we can reform some if we at least try.
I agree with all of that and don't see that it conflicts with my view, as far as I can understand what you mean. Saying that a person is evil does not keep you from trying to understand what motivates them or what it would take to change them. Neither does it indicate that you hate them or require you to write them off. It also doesn't stop you from making theories. I don't think it's really anything more than a simple acknowledgment of their agency.
Going back to my analogy, saying that a driver has pointed his car toward E does not keep you from studying the driver, the road, the journey or forming theories as to which factors encourage driving in a given direction.
-
I agree with all of that and don't see that it conflicts with my view, as far as I can understand what you mean. Saying that a person is evil does not keep you from trying to understand what motivates them or what it would take to change them. Neither does it indicate that you hate them or require you to write them off. It also doesn't stop you from making theories. I don't think it's really anything more than a simple acknowledgment of their agency.
Going back to my analogy, saying that a driver has pointed his car toward E does not keep you from studying the driver, the road, the journey or forming theories as to which factors encourage driving in a given direction.
If we want to continue to use roads an an analogy, I think we're nearing the point on this one at which we need to simply agree to disagree and call it a night. This might come across as deliberately obtuse and argumentative, but I have no idea what you're talking about when you say the "good-evil" highway is a "simple acknowledgment of their agency". If you're accepting that people in general have motives which are rational to them and that by understanding those motives we can try to understant and hopefully correct their behavior then I fail to see what labelling people as "good" or "evil" can accomplish. At best it's simply another word to classify what we already agree is anti-social and unacceptable behavior. At worst it's a label that on some level de-humanizes a criminal and absolves society of its share of responsibility. This is the problem I had when you started off talking about "evil hearts", and going back to the idea of some kind of good-evil access strikes me as simplistic and judgemental.
What do the words "good" and "evil" mean to you, Mr Tweedy? Does it concern you that what is morally acceptable has changed considerably over the years? How can we measure such a thing and, if we can't, of what use is it as a concept?
-
I'll give my answers to those questions, but, if you don't mind, I'll ask you a question first:
If you do not believe there is any objective moral standard and that, consequently, what is right and wrong can change as one moves geographically or chronologically, then how do you justify the idea of rehabilitation? Wouldn't that be merely an attempt to replace the arbitrary, mutable, temporary preferences of one person with the equally arbitrary, mutable and temporary preferences of another? If so, what gives you the right to do it and on what basis would you call it "good"?
-
The point of rehabilitation, Mr. Tweedy, is to allow someone to rejoin society by discouraging anti-social behavior. Although you may find it troubling, there are ways that "arbitrary, mutable and temporary preferences" can be evaluated and compared. Regardless of the existence of some absolute standard, we have certain moral intuitions which we can debate and discuss to arrive at a code of behavior for society. There are a large number of ethical theories which don't need to appeal to 'natural law' or divine commandments.
There is a concept in the Anglo-American tradition of criminal law called mens rea (evil mind.) To convict someone of any criminal offense you have to prove they acted purposefully, knowingly, recklessly or negligently with regards to all the material elements of the offense. So, we say a person is morally culpable relative to the amount of certainty and desire they had towards the outcome. Using the levels of culpability, we can differentiate, if you will, between grades of evil behind the action. It is worse to kill someone deliberately than to accidentally do so during risky behavior. Beyond this, I can see no purpose for speaking of good and evil to establish the agency of an individual who commits a crime.
I guess the main problem I have with your view Mr. Tweedy is your need to go beyond behavior. We can speak of tendencies, or how a given environment will affect someone but there is no way to evaluate a man's soul. Furthermore, efforts to try to evaluate someone's soul rather than their behavior are the fastest path to injustice imaginable. While I still agree that people must participate in their own reform, the idea that they need a change of heart is a useful concept. I believe it was the apostle Paul who said "Faith without works is dead." I would argue that works can create their own faith. Cognitive behavioral therapy is effective.
In fact I would argue that the important part of reform is in changing behavior and that changing the inner soul comes after.
-
I'll give my answers to those questions, but, if you don't mind, I'll ask you a question first:
If you do not believe there is any objective moral standard and that, consequently, what is right and wrong can change as one moves geographically or chronologically, then how do you justify the idea of rehabilitation? Wouldn't that be merely an attempt to replace the arbitrary, mutable, temporary preferences of one person with the equally arbitrary, mutable and temporary preferences of another? If so, what gives you the right to do it and on what basis would you call it "good"?
I think qwints beat me to the punch on this one. It needs doing on the basis of allowing one to become part of society. If your morals do not, at least on some level, match up with mine then it creates a conflict between us. One purpose of laws is to minimize such conflict and allow people to live together peacefully.
I believe that there are moral principals that seem universal, but am humble enough to recognize that elements of my morality would seem foreign to someone from the past and, quite possibly, old-fashioned and out-dated to a time traveller from the future. As our understanding deepens, some of our values as a a society evolve. Think about slavery. It was an acceptable practice for much of human history until what we see today as a deeper moral understanding allowed some people to take the lead in fighting to help change society's behaviour to represent a new set of values. Would you agree that there's most likely something in our behaviour today that would be equally shocking and shameful to our descendants, or do you think we've reached the state of understanding "absolute good"?
-
Qwints, you confound me. You seem to be agreeing with me, but at the same time claiming you are not.
There is a concept in the Anglo-American tradition of criminal law called mens rea (evil mind.) To convict someone of any criminal offense you have to prove they acted purposefully, knowingly, recklessly or negligently with regards to all the material elements of the offense. So, we say a person is morally culpable relative to the amount of certainty and desire they had towards the outcome. Using the levels of culpability, we can differentiate, if you will, between grades of evil behind the action. It is worse to kill someone deliberately than to accidentally do so during risky behavior.
Isn't that exactly what I've been saying? That the pragmatic fact of the behavior is less important than the intent behind it? That the fact that someone kills is less important than why they kill? I am at a loss as to how you can write a statement like this and still deny that good and evil are relevant concepts.
Furthermore, efforts to try to evaluate someone's soul rather than their behavior are the fastest path to injustice imaginable.
Huh? Then what was that about mens rea? Didn't you just say that we need to evaluate the perpetrator's motive and knowledge to determine culpability and achieve justice? If we did not "evaluate someone's soul" then we would give everyone who kills the same punishment without considering their reasons! (Perhaps I don't understand what you mean by "soul"?)
While I still agree that people must participate in their own reform, the idea that they need a change of heart is [not] a useful concept. I believe it was the apostle Paul who said "Faith without works is dead." I would argue that works can create their own faith. Cognitive behavioral therapy is effective.
That's actually from the book of James, but I'm afraid you don't understand what it's saying. That thought is finished with "I will show you my faith by what I do." The idea is this: A lack of works demonstrates that there is no faith. A person's actions are the expression of their heart.
In fact I would argue that the important part of reform is in changing behavior and that changing the inner soul comes after.
That is absolutely ghoulish and horrifying. That's abolishing the will of a person, destroying their personality and imposing your own fabrication. That's "1984". Apply the right "therapy" to a person, and their mind will snap, turn to mush to be reformed as you see fit. (I'm sure that's not what you have in mind, but it's what any kind of outside-in change would ultimately come down to.)
In sum, I now have no idea what you mean about any of this, save for a vague impression that it might be unwholesome.
------------------
Neither of you answered my question. I did not ask what the goal of rehabilitation is. I asked how you justify it. If the values of society are not better in some objective sense than the values of the criminal, then how can you justify ousting one set of values in favor of the other?
-
Isn't that exactly what I've been saying? That the pragmatic fact of the behavior is less important than the intent behind it? That the fact that someone kills is less important than why they kill? I am at a loss as to how you can write a statement like this and still deny that good and evil are relevant concepts.
...
Huh? Then what was that about mens rea? Didn't you just say that we need to evaluate the perpetrator's motive and knowledge to determine culpability and achieve justice? If we did not "evaluate someone's soul" then we would give everyone who kills the same punishment without considering their reasons! (Perhaps I don't understand what you mean by "soul"?)
Sorry, that last post was a bit unclear. Let me first clarify what the significance of mens rea is. The more control one has over the outcome, the more culpable one is for it. Under the law, active euthanasia has the same mens rea as a contract killing. Motive is not a component of crime under modern criminal law except as an aggravating factor (e.g. killing someone in retaliation for being a witness is a capital offense.) So intent, in a mens rea sense, is merely "a conscious desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result." (Texas Penal Code Sec 6.03(a))
That said, maybe I failed to make it clear that I see an important distinction between analyzing someone's motivation for a particular behavior and describing them as a good or evil person. Although particular motivations are important, someone's general character is of minimal importance. These motivations are valuable for their predictive value, not as a means of trying to evaluate whether a person's soul is good or evil. I use soul to mean some characteristic of a person beyond their mind, some inner goodness or evilness. People should be judged for their actions and their likelihood to commit such actions in the future.
I yield to your greater understanding of theology, but I disagree with the proposition that a person's actions "are the expression of their heart." Society should not be content to merely to explain away ant-social behavior by saying people have good or evil hearts.
As I write this I think I'm finding an internal contradiction between my belief in rational choice theory and my belief in the effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy. Suffice it to say I'm finding it hard to reconcile the idea that people are rational utility-seekers and that choosing behaviors can affect one's inner attitudes. I'll have to think about this more closely.
I don't think that the rehabilitation efforts I'm discussing imply a destruction of the will, but maybe they do. Although I did find the re-education describe in 1984 horrific, do we, as a society, really feel a need to preserve a will to harm others? Perhaps one point of the story was to question how far a society should go in trying to reform criminals.
I've written a fair amount, so I won't go too far into the accusation that we have not justified rehabilitation. Briefly, I think that a goal considered desirable by society is a justification (though I am aware of the unpleasant conclusions reached by this principle.)
-
Neither of you answered my question. I did not ask what the goal of rehabilitation is. I asked how you justify it. If the values of society are not better in some objective sense than the values of the criminal, then how can you justify ousting one set of values in favor of the other?
The goal of rehabilitation is to reform criminals' behavior so that they act lawfully. The justification is the greater good [i.e., the better functioning] of the society. It need not be about replacing one set of values with another. What value does the drug addict who steals to maintain his habit need to reform? What value does the 15 year old who killed a man while joy riding at excessive speeds need to reform? Criminals may share the values of the society at large, but believe their case has special justifications [I'll embezzle this money from my company because they don't need it and I do; I'll pay them back when I'm in better financial condition - besides, I earned the money anyway... This embezzler may still very well believe that stealing is wrong - his values don't need to be changed, just his adherence to them]
In the case that a person believes, say, that all property is communal and therefore s/he should be able to take whatever s/he wants, whenever s/he wants it, this value clearly conflicts with a capitalistic society's values. However, even in this case the state need not change the person's values - it merely needs to ensure that the person will agree to abide by the law. That is, the person need not renounce her/his belief in communism, but must agree to recognize that s/he lives in a capitalist society, and must live by its laws or be imprisoned.
Note that if this person were to steal anyways, he/she would be imprisoned and join those who believed they were imprisoned by unjust states, and that history or a higher justice would vindicate them.
Note also that a change of heart is not necessary or the goal of rehabilitation, although it would accomplish change. However, all that is necessary is that the person agree not to steal, not that they change their beliefs about property. That is, they recognize that other's do not share their beliefs about property and act accordingly.
------------
Before this discussion veers off into relativism vs. absolutism, a topic which Mr. Tweedy and I have exchanged thoughts on elsewhere, I wanted to clarify one point. In much of this discussion, I have focused on the metaphysics and the individual. Thus I felt no qualms whatsoever stating that Mr. Tweedy's solution [introducing the man who beat his wife to Jesus] was fine with me. Religion has been a godsend for some people, helping them turn around lives that have gone out of control. If religion was introduced to them, non-coercively from a friend or acquaintance, say, I would have no problem with that. However, if the state were to adopt this as their solution to rehabilitating criminals [which I still don't think Mr. Tweedy was advocating], I would have a problem with it, for a number of reasons. [1] I believe in the separation of state and church, [2] such an approach would go far beyond preparing someone for a life lived within the law and would, indeed, be attempting to force values upon them, even though, as czhorat pointed out [I believe] they may have strong beliefs in a different religion, and, well, that's enough.
-
Ah, I think I finally see what you're getting at, and possibly what qwints and Czhorat were saying too. I fear I may have been being obtuse.
What value does the drug addict who steals to maintain his habit need to reform? What value does the 15 year old who killed a man while joy riding at excessive speeds need to reform?
In the first case, the addict need to value a productive life and healthy relationships more than drugs. The joy-rider needs to value the safety of others more than his fun. That change of heart is what I've been talking about. BUT, those values do not need to change in order for behavior to change if other values can be leveraged. For example, the joy-rider obviously values fun. If we threaten to take his fun away, we can make him behave on that basis. He might still have no regard for the safety of his fellows, but fear of loosing his ride may keep him from reckless driving.
I have been focussing on changing a person's motivations, which cannot be done from the outside in, but if we are talking only about behavior, then existing motivations can be exploited to achieve the desired result. The pragmatic result is the same whether the killer's heart is changed so that he no longer wants to kill or if he is too intimidated by the prospect of punishment to act on his desires. Hence, a criminal who behaves for no other reason than to avoid further punishment can be considered rehabilitated.
If that's all you've been getting at, then I apologize for not seeing it sooner. I've been looking at it from a perspective of changing people, while you're just concerned with getting them to behave (which is, really, all the state should concern itself with). I think we've been having two distinct discussions–1.) the nature of good and evil and 2.) crime prevention–but I didn't see their distinction until now.
-----------------
I said I'd answer questions put to me:
What do the words "good" and "evil" mean to you, Mr Tweedy?
Concisely: To be good is to be in line with the will of God. Good things make God happy. To be evil is to be outside the will of God. Evil bums God out.
Does it concern you that what is morally acceptable has changed considerably over the years?
Not in the least. I consider the standards of society to be utterly irrelevant in determining what is right or wrong. There are many aspects of my society that are evil, and I condemn them as such and do what little I may to change them. There are many aspects which are good, and I appreciate and encourage those. I do not think that there has ever been a perfect society and I don't expect one any time soon. Hence, there will always be some degree of dissonance between the moral standard of someone who seeks to obey God and of the society in which they live.
How can we measure such a thing and, if we can't, of what use is it as a concept?
I think that I am generally able to judge whether a given action is good or evil (based upon various inputs God has provided for me, which is probably more explaining than you're looking for) and that is useful to me in determining what I should do.
Would you agree that there's most likely something in our behaviour today that would be equally shocking and shameful to our descendants, or do you think we've reached the state of understanding "absolute good"?
The first one. No society (or person) has ever been absolutely good.
-
Hence, a criminal who behaves for no other reason than to avoid further punishment can be considered rehabilitated.
I'm probably as responsible for muddying the waters of the discussion as much as anyone. It does feel rather cathartic to reach agreement, and I think you have summed up my definition of rehabilitation better than I've been able to. I've really enjoyed this discussion and want to thank all of you for helping me clarify my ideas on punishment in preparation for my criminal law exam tomorrow.
-
Hey All,
Don't worry I'm staying out of this one. I just have a request. From time to time, and pratically with every post in this thread, someone posts a response and then edits it up to 45 minutes later. I end up reading the first version and then when I'm finished reading all of the new posts, I find that there's something new in this thread and come back. It's almost always the same post with a slight edit in it. On a short post this is no big deal, but on these mamoth treatises it can be rather annoying. Please use the preview button for your editing routine instead of the post button.
Thank you,
Russell
-
Concisely: To be good is to be in line with the will of God. Good things make God happy. To be evil is to be outside the will of God. Evil bums God out.
This is where I should get off of this particular train. I'm tempted to ask if believing in non-Christian religions would be "evil" in your mind as it "bums out" your God by directly contradicting one of His commandments. Is it impossible for a Hindu, a Buddhist, or an atheist to be a "good" person by your definition? Does that really matters in the first place? I, personally, see religion as morally neutral but that's another discussion.
Please don't answer if you don't feel comfortable discussing these matters here. We've veered so far off course I barely remember which story we were supposedly discussing, but that's OK. When we reach matters of faith (which is where I suspected this was heading all along) it's hard to maintain rational discussion.
-
Hey All,
Don't worry I'm staying out of this one. I just have a request. From time to time, and pratically with every post in this thread, someone posts a response and then edits it up to 45 minutes later. I end up reading the first version and then when I'm finished reading all of the new posts, I find that there's something new in this thread and come back. It's almost always the same post with a slight edit in it. On a short post this is no big deal, but on these mamoth treatises it can be rather annoying. Please use the preview button for your editing routine instead of the post button.
Thank you,
Russell
Thanks for the info Russell - no matter how much time I spend composing a post I almost always think of a better way to say something or a possible misinterpretation within an hour of posting. I thought editing the post would make it easier for readers rather than a string of posts, but didn't take the moderator into consideration. I'll add posts in the future rather than modifying them when this happens.
Sorry for the trouble!
-
Concisely: To be good is to be in line with the will of God. Good things make God happy. To be evil is to be outside the will of God. Evil bums God out.
This is where I should get off of this particular train. I'm tempted to ask if believing in non-Christian religions would be "evil" in your mind as it "bums out" your God by directly contradicting one of His commandments. Is it impossible for a Hindu, a Buddhist, or an atheist to be a "good" person by your definition? Does that really matters in the first place? I, personally, see religion as morally neutral but that's another discussion.
Please don't answer if you don't feel comfortable discussing these matters here. We've veered so far off course I barely remember which story we were supposedly discussing, but that's OK. When we reach matters of faith (which is where I suspected this was heading all along) it's hard to maintain rational discussion.
Ha! My comfort zone is nigh on infinite, but there are other reasons to not talk about something. I don't really want to veer off there either, but I think it's important to avoid confusion on a few things, because I could seem like a scary person otherwise.
First, I don't think there is an inherent conflict between faith and reason. Faith (as I understand and practice it) is not believing in something no matter what, facts be damned. Faith and reason should complement each other.
Second, although I most certainly believe in absolute black and white good and evil, I recognize that it is impossible and dangerous to assign such labels to groups of individuals. For instance, a statement like "Muslims are evil" is inherently ignorant and biased. There is a lot more to consider about a person than what label they or their society attaches to them. Calling oneself "Christian" does no guarantee a spot in Heaven and calling oneself something else does no guarantee being shut out. God is not interested in labels: He is interested in people's hearts. Reality before appearance.
Third (and this is very important) I think it's a very very very bad idea or the state to try to impose religion on people. As I've said, it is impossible to force someone to believe anything and it is monstrous to try. If people bow down to God only because they are afraid the state will punish them, what good is that? Freedom of religion is very important and people must be free to believe whatever they want. Law should never be a tool evangelism.
-
Y'all* are probably bored with this, but I feel a need to tie it back to the story.
We've agreed (more of less, and while leaving 152 loose ends) that there are two ways to stop a criminal from committing further crimes: a.) change the heart so that the criminal no longer wants to commit crimes or b.) give them some ulterior motive to behave (reward/punishment) even though they'd really rather not.
To illustrate this dichotomy, I will call upon my fond childhood memories of the Saturday morning cartoon "The Tick." There is an episode in which The Tick finds himself riding through space on the surface of a really huge guy with the descriptive name Omnipotus, Devourer of Worlds. Omnipotus, as his name implies, eats planets, much to chagrin of planet-dwellers. Omnipotus is also very lonely and laments his lack of friends.
On arriving at Earth, Omnipotus begins devouring. Physical attacks on him are useless; he's too big. When all hope seems lost, The Tick drops this philosophical bombshell: "The reason you don't have any friends is because you eat people!" Omnipotus stops in his tracks, stunned by revelation. Realizing the error of his ways, he vows to never again eat an inhabited planet, and goes peacefully on his way.
In this example, physically trying to stop Omnipotus is equivalent to using punishment and reward. We try to threaten him with something and bank that his fear will outweigh his desire to eat us. The Tick's reasoning is the change of heart approach. We convince Omnipotus of the value of Earth so that he no longer wants to eat it.
If we're only concerned with practical results, both approaches can work. But in the story, neither of these approaches was really tried. The state did not try to teach the hitman that killing people is bad, and it didn't give him any threat or reward to encourage good behavior. The state assumed that if they simply changed his circumstance, then neither moral education nor punishment was necessary. They left his will and values out of the equation, treating him like a machine that needed some bad programming excised. Any effective crime deterrent must consider what a person values and why.
*I propose that "y'all" be made a formal part of the English language, since we currently lack a second person plural pronoun. (We could really use a neuter third person singular pronoun too. "S/he" is hard to pronounce.)
-
Concerning your proposal for a neuter third person singular pronoun, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_pronoun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_pronoun)
Also, I agree that this story didn't really try either of the approaches we discussed, as far as I could figure out it was wiping selective memories but keeping the person's "drive". So someone who was erased could remember how to read and write, but not who they were. And then throw them back into society. This makes the attempts at rehabilitation in "A Clockwork Orange" seem positively humane and civil.
Finally, not to re-open the topic but to clarify one point, I think you've simplified approach "b" a bit - its not only looking at reward/punishment, but other factors as well. Job training is a perfect example. How far you go in this direction raises some potential ethical questions - should criminals be "rewarded" with free job training, education, etc.? There is a line that can be crossed there, but if your goal is to keep a criminal from coming back to prison, it may take more than reward or punishment to accomplish this [and even a change of heart can be severely tested and strained if someone goes back to the same exact life they left without any extra skills or support]. I think this is what qwints meant when he said that changing behavior can lead to a change of heart, too. Give some one more skills, more education, coping strategies, support, etc., it may help them to understand the world differently and lead to a change of heart. To use the hackneyed phrase a little differently, you can't force a horse to drink, but you can lead it to water.
-
I hate to resurrect a dead thread, but I want to thank everyone who participated in this discussion for my A in criminal law. Discussing basic principles on a lay level really helped me, so thanks especially to Mr. Tweedy for calling me out on vagueness in my explanations.
Procrastination on the internets FTW!