Buried alive

[feedback]

Rehabilitation is bullshit. The percentage of inmates who get rehabilitated and proceed to stay out of trouble is so small it's laughable. Most end up committing the same crime again, if not a worse crime.

Live in prison is bullshit, too. It costs $60,000 to imprison a man per year. The death penalty is just a quick spike in the electrical bill.

Where do you get this statistic from? Somebody convicted and sentanced for murder, and then released, is no more likely to commit another crime than anybody else.

Is that based on cumulative data? I'd tend to disagree if you looked at each convict individually.

Cumulitive, I remember it from when in my PH 205 class we discussed death penalties and deterrance ad nauseum.

[[xeno]Julios]

I'm not sure they stand in need of 'philosophical grounding' to begin with. You've sort of darted through a lot of territory here Jules...it might help if you briefly gave your argument re: why our common sense notions of free-will and responsibility need to be abandoned or at least heavily modified.

I've found the classic literature on free will to be a bit disappointing and somewhat incoherent, so I prefer to use simple devices and assumptions.


Device: thought experiment involving a machine that makes decisions.

Assumption: fundamentally we are no different from such a machine.

Throughout the literature there is a confusion of what it means to be free and responsible. I believe this is because freedom (in the way the libertarians want it) is an absurd concept. It can only be defined in terms of reactive attitudes, rather than in formal definitions. Freedom for the noncompatibilists seems to be something like this:

- a genuinely free choice
- at time T, the agent has the power to choose either X or Y, and is not bound to one of them


what is often ignored, is the notion of the basis of such a choice. I do not mean a physical, or substrative, basis - but rather a decision making basis.

Another way of framing this paradox is by asking the following:

"if we're not bound by determining factors, then what exactly determines the choice?"

If nothing determines the choice, then how can the choice be made? If something determines the choice, then what controls that something? If we want freedom, then the agent has to control that something, by choosing that something. But is this very choice free? It's a vicious regress into fluffy bullshit.

Chisolm attempts to circumvent this problem by positing the idea of immanent causation (as opposed to transeunt), but as far as I could tell, he never explains what such a thing could mean. Although to be fair, transeunt causation doesn't make much sense either if you really think about it - how does cause really exert its effect?

What people really want to say is that freedom is the mental mechanism that justifies my anger or love toward someone that wrongs me or rights me

So much for incompatibilism.

Compatibilism seems confused in a different sense. Many cases are built up around the faculty of reason, and will - but I feel the big mistake is in bridging the moral gap. I do not see how a machine can be held responsible for an action that it was bound to perform.

I've also found it interesting that two qualities associated with wise religious figures, or enlightened individuals, is utter humility and infinite forgiveness. Both these attitudes are completely compatible with the notion that free will does not exist...


Here are a few notes I wrote down a couple months ago:

The feeling that people sometimes refer to, in the primary defense of their position on free will, is that they use reason to change their behaviour. When they experience this use of reason, it provides for them a sense of relief and control. Relief from commiting an "irrational" behaviour, and control as in a rationally controlled form of behaviour.

Their mistake is in conflating these experiences, which have emotional import, with the notion of a freedom that would have allowed for them to have made the choice to use reason.

The strongest form of compatibilism might be that there is an infinitely recursive reasoning process, whereby we base the choice (of whether to act reasonably) itself on reason.

Another way of putting it, is that if the will is to be the exercise of reason, then free will is the will to will to will ad infinitum.

But a few important things must be said:

Firstly, while this sort of free will is conceivably desirable, its possibility does not necessarily bridge the moral gap. The morality referred to is in the sense that there is a logic to punishment that is distinct from the utility of satisfying (understandable) cravings for revenge or retribution, deterrance/protection, or even rehabilitation. For the question is begged: How are we to be held morally responsible for acquiring that free will. It is conceivable, and indeed empirically secure, that there are agents within our community who do not exercise this sort of free will. That is, they are not riding the enlightened tracks of recursive reason. Now you're either on this track, or off it, and we have to account for the fact that there must be some explanation as to how this manouvere (getting on or off the tracks) was initiated and carried out. We can't relegate it to "will", since we'd never get off the track if we're always functioning in accordance with "reason"; and you'd never get on the track, since if reason was the only way to get onto it, you'd have been using reason in the first place! Therefore you'd have to invoke some other (more suspect) form of the choice-concept in order to allow for this sort of control, if you wanted to justify this logic of punishment.

Secondly, it presupposes that the idea of infinite recursion of reason is a coherent notion. One way of challenging this is to consider the idea that rationality cannot exist independently of a world context. That is, it is reasonable to refrain from punching an innocent, given the world context of our biology and nervous systems - a punch would cause someone innocent to suffer (this is all assuming that we have a moral framework based on empathy or something similar). Or, it is reasonable to spend x amount of money on food items this week based on current economic and physical conditions. One wonders if an infinite analysis of the context, which is required and mirrored by an infinite recursive reasoning process, will ever converge upon an answer. My intuition is that it will not.

Thirdly, and most importantly, even if the above intuition is wrong, it presupposes that our minds are designed in such a fashion that would allow for such recursive functioning. Does the physical implementation of mind allow for such a cognitive explanation?

[Ryoki]

Goddamnit, how'd this turn into a philosophy debate?

What's the solution? Spend a boatload of taxpayer money to treat someone's illness after they rape and murder someone? Why? So we can all feel better about ourselves and allow some freakzoid scumbag to suck on the public tit for the rest of the state-sponsored lives? Fuck that.

Exactly, so we can all feel better about ourselves. Even a fucking werewolf has a right to live.

Of course we're never going to agree on this since you feel the deathsentance is the ultimate thing a goverment can do to protect the population and i feel that a lifesentance is the ultimate thing a goverment can do without betraying the fundamental principle of being a goverment (which is imo protecting all of the people you assume responsability for). It may make you feel dirty to pay taxes to feed, cloth and even educate these people, but i prefer it to paying for someone's unnesessary death. Probably a cultural difference eh?

Btw you realise of course that your money argument is flawed, there are many studies that show that the cost of having someone spend years on deathrow, applying for appeal after appeal and the final excecution are far higher than a simple life sentance...

[Transient]

Where do you get this statistic from? Somebody convicted and sentanced for murder, and then released, is no more likely to commit another crime than anybody else.

Hahahaha! Oh, you WERE kidding, right?

[Transient]

what if that person had a bad childhood, or was educated in an unhealthy environment, or had an uncontrollable urge?

An uncontrollable urge denotes a mental shortcoming. By depriving them of the ability to reproduce, future generations are all the more likely to be healthy. Evolution, survival of the fittest, etc.

[Ryoki]

An uncontrollable urge denotes a mental shortcoming. By depriving them of the ability to reproduce, future generations are all the more likely to be healthy. Evolution, survival of the fittest, etc.

That's not darwinisnm, that's fascism. GG.

[Keep It Real]

what if that person had a bad childhood, or was educated in an unhealthy environment, or had an uncontrollable urge?

An uncontrollable urge denotes a mental shortcoming.

You couldn't be more wrong, take a psychology or anthropology class.

[Ryoki]

Hahahaha! Oh, you WERE kidding, right?

Also, why don't you answer the man's question?

[Keep It Real]

what if that person had a bad childhood, or was educated in an unhealthy environment, or had an uncontrollable urge?

An uncontrollable urge denotes a mental shortcoming.

You couldn't be more wrong, take a psychology or anthropology class.

Or even sociology... There are more black criminals in America but black people are 99% identical to whites genetically...so no your fantasies thoughts and urges do not come from your genes. and youre really stupid!

[Nightshade]

If you know the difference between right and wrong, and you still commit the act, buh-bye. Say hello to Uncle Dirtnap.

If someone knows that killing a child is wrong, then why did she commit the crime? Probably because of some desire or urge. Perhaps she wanted to get a mercedes and needed the money, so she killed the kid and sold the organs. That urge or desire was not able to be overcome, because of her character. Is she responsible for the nature of her character? Well the nature of her character is partially a result of experiences and decisions she's made in the past. But those events were a function of her previous character, etc.

They still make the choice to commit the crime, and I do see it as a choice. I think the critical point that must be addressed is that of mental competence. If a person suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, do we really hold that person responsible for violent crimes they commit in the grip of a delusion?
I feel this is different than a violent sex offender that commits murder while fulfilling their desires, so there's no blanket argument that can be applied to all cases of mental illness.

[[xeno]Julios]

An uncontrollable urge denotes a mental shortcoming.

It's arguable that all actions are uncontrollable urges.

My responding to your post is an uncontrollable urge - it's just that the counter-urge (desire to abstain from posting) isn't that great, so the deliberation isn't experienced as some big battle.

[[xeno]Julios]

They still make the choice to commit the crime, and I do see it as a choice. I think the critical point that must be addressed is that of mental competence. If a person suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, do we really hold that person responsible for violent crimes they commit in the grip of a delusion?
I feel this is different than a violent sex offender that commits murder while fulfilling their desires, so there's no blanket argument that can be applied to all cases of mental illness.

fair enough - i did bunch together many types of mental dysfunctioning that have important distinctions.

[Zyte -_-]

:lol: Couldn't agree more. I'm of the exact same opinion.

I've had chats about this with friends as well, and some of them also think like ryoki and a few others in this thread. It's fucking bullshit that anyone thinks an eye for an eye is wrong. If someone raped, physically hurt or killed someone close to me, then they deserve anything that comes their way. If they happen to be raped in prison by some fat slimy, tattooed convicts, GOOD FUCKING JOB!

nice argumentation

[AmIdYfReAk]

Every action has an equal reaction.

[Ryoki]

Did you just try and justify revenge by comparing it to physics?

[AmIdYfReAk]

No.... wait.... maby.

[GONNAFISTYA]

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=543&scid=45

Conclusion
Twenty years ago this country (the US) embarked on an experiment with new death penalty statutes aimed at correcting the inequities and arbitrariness of the past. There now exists a considerable body of evidence--in the form of statistics, expert opinion, and personal accounts--which clearly indicates that the death penalty remains infected with injustice. Race, economics, local politics, and a host of other factors that have nothing to do with the stated purposes of capital punishment, dictate who is executed and who is spared. While the death penalty may satisfy some people's need for revenge, in practice it remains a lottery in which the American system of justice is the ultimate loser. After twenty years it is fair to conclude, with retired Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun, that "the death penalty experiment has failed."

[Massive Quasars]

Quick comment on free will, again.

People seem to talk past each other in argument when what they define as freedom and free will, sometimes differs. I admit that it's easier for me to conclude that no free will exists outright, but I'm not willing to do that until I've given more consideration to the reasonable arguments on both sides of this issue.

[Dr.Gibbs]

If everyone got what they deserved, then society would be in trouble.

Torture and murder is never right, no matter what the circumstances are. The ONLY time it's okay to kill someone is when you are doing it in self-defense. "Two wrongs don't make a right" is every bit as old as "eye for an eye," and it's true. It's something that people often forget, especially when they are angry.

Unfortunately there are too many people in this country (the US) who do not understand the complexities of criminal behavior, and they allow their anger and thirst for vengence to get in the way of rational thought. I do not in any way support rapists and murderers, but until society as a whole understands why serial criminals continue to do what they do, crime will continue to be a problem. You are fortunate if in the large number of times you have lost control of your emotions, you have never hurt anyone.

I don't tend to put much value on the worldview of a society that not 100 years ago segregated blacks and didn't allow women to vote. Interestingly enough, we're also the only society who has ever nuked someone. To this day I hear people justifying it.

[Dr.Gibbs]

About free will... when given a choice, you will always choose the option that you believe will bring you the least pain and the most pleasure. There is no such thing as free will as people usually define it. You are a prisoner of your perceptions, and you will always choose the option that you believe will help you the most.

What about the father that works two jobs to feed his children? He considers the pain of working 80 hours a week to be more tolerable than the pain of watching his children starve to death. It is ultimately a selfish decision.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

Julios,

I don't think it is a deterministic universe. It's a probabalistic universe.

Not unlike the double slit experiments with electrons and their random unpredictable patterns, our number of choices may be finite (and even predictable), but what we ultimately choose, may be seen as a probablity, an actualization of one of the possibilities but ultimately unpredictable as to which one.

[Massive Quasars]

It's a little more complicated than that, puff. edit: QM doesn't rule out all determinism.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

It's a little more complicated than that, puff. edit: QM doesn't rule out all determinism.

what do you mean by 'all determinism'?

(and yes i know it's more complicated, i was trying to illustrate an idea rather than explain a full set of reasons )

[Massive Quasars]

I mean all deterministic arguments or positions.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

I mean all deterministic arguments or positions.

ahh i gotcha. yeah, some would argue that sub atomic events couldn't have an effect on the Newtonian universe but I just don't see how that's so.
Some would then counter that I don't see how it's so, because not all factors are observable and that person could further argue that even though not observable, there are forces which are determining the probablistic stuff i.e. the influence from 7 other dimensions etc.

but what reasons do they have to think that?