Discussion of motivation & Punishment from EP134

[Mr. Tweedy]

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.

[eytanz]

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.

[Czhorat]

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.

[Mr. Tweedy]

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.}

[Darwinist]

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. 

[Loz]

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.

[Mr. Tweedy]

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.

[Czhorat]

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.

[ajames]

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.

[Mr. Tweedy]

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.

[ajames]

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. 

[Czhorat]

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.

[Mr. Tweedy]

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 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.

[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.

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 

[Mr. Tweedy]

Cool.   Agrees all around.  I don't scoff at your solution: Our solutions would almost certainly overlap.

[Czhorat]

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.

[Mr. Tweedy]

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.

[Czhorat]

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.

[Mr. Tweedy]

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?

[qwints]

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.

[Czhorat]

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.

[Mr. Tweedy]

So far as I can tell from my reading of Lord of the Rings, Sauron's primary motivation was to drive the plot.

LOL   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.

[ajames]

So far as I can tell from my reading of Lord of the Rings, Sauron's primary motivation was to drive the plot.

LOL   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!

 

[Mr. Tweedy]

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.

[ajames]

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.