Discussion of motivation & Punishment from EP134

[qwints]

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.)

[ajames]

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.

[Mr. Tweedy]

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.

[qwints]

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.

[Russell Nash]

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

[Czhorat]

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.

[ajames]

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!

[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.

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.

[Mr. Tweedy]

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.)}

[ajames]

Concerning your proposal for a neuter third person singular pronoun, see
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.

[qwints]

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!