rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (11/04/85)
Baba seems to think that "punishment as a goal in and of itself is just something I'm asserting to exist, rather than something that in fact does exist. He gives what he claims are six examples of my asserting this. |>>> Of course, you get some people who work |>>>backwards from a desired conclusion: well, humans ARE self-determining |>>>entities, otherwise how could we blame/credit ourselves and others for the |>>>things that are done...[Rosen] |> If reward/ |>punishment is the goal rather than the means for reaching a goal (like |>non-interfering "pro-social"(?) behavior), you're in trouble. Yet, in a way, |>that's where we seem to be. [Rosen] |>>> This notion permeates a good deal of western law: |>>>you do something wrong, YOU are a bad person who should be punished. That |>>>may not be the hallmark of "sadistic disciplinarians", but it hardly sounds |>>>like the actions of rational people to me. [Rosen] |> What it |>DID say is that the GOAL has become reward/punishment, mostly punishment, |>coupled with judgment of the person as "bad" and thus "worthy" of punishment. |> |>Do you see any evidence that that punishment facet is used with an intent |>of reaching such a goal, rather than BEING a goal in and of itself? [Rosen] |> How many kids grow up with the notion that you |>seem to have, regarding punishment (and power to administer it) being a goal |>in and of itself. [Rosen] > Saying it six times doesn't make it so, Rich. Again, who are these people > whose goal is punishment and HOW DO YOU KNOW that that is their goal? You say it as if I was referring to an intentional goal that people have of punishing (which would indeed as you say make them sadists). What I am referring is the losing sight of a goal and usurping of that goal (consciously or otherwise) by the means of achieving the goal. This is the standard historical perspective of bureaucracy in general: it has a high purpose or goal in mind, and a means of achieving it, but as times goes on, the ultimate goal is usurped by the newly defined goal of survival of the bureaucracy and its mechanism, often to the exclusion of the original goal. But you boldly and proudly deny that this EVER happens. Do you deny that many (if not most) parents sometimes hit their children out of anger at them without thought to DISCIPLINING them (i.e., molding their behavior in a responsible way)? Do you deny that many prison systems are nothing but holding tanks and breeding grounds for further criminality, without any rehabilitative function being exercised? (Thus resulting in prisons becoming a perfect method for criminals to develop what business people call personal networking strategies.) Do you deny that people in general are more interested in seeing criminals "punished" for being bad rather than rehabilitating them and/or preventing them from behaving that way in the future, ESPECIALLY when you ask about "what should be done" with a specific criminal? It may not be their "conscious" goal, but in terms of how they implement the punishment and seek it out, it is in fact the resulting goal. Of course, this is just my assertion, whereas your clever repartee represents facts. (By the way, what did the first of your six examples from my writing have to do with the issue at hand?) > My interactions with my parents, my teachers, and with the American judicial > system, both as a (juvenile) malfeasant and as a juror, lead me to believe > that punishment is principally used as conditioning against the repetition > of an unacceptable act, and secondarily as a deterrent against such acts > on the part of others. There are certainly sadists in the world, but to > believe that our ethical, social, and legal systems operate primarily for > their benefit is literally madness. Indeed. It is madness when the fact that we have lost sight of the real goals behind discipline/punishment is so vigorously denied. It is pitiable when people (like Dr. Bruno Bettelheim in this month's Atlantic magazine) have to write articles about something that should be painfully obvious. It is scary. > I started this series of postings in an attempt to demonstrate that the > concepts of credit/blame and reward/punishment are rational and useful > even in a materialist/determinist universe. You are evidently too lost > in your own dark obsessions to be able to discuss such things. Sorry. You hardly evoke the word "sorry" in the rest of your writing. In fact, you evoke the phrase "fuck you". If that is your attitude, fine. Refrain from communicating with those of us who want to talk some sense (what you call dark obsessions, i.e., anything that contradicts your "light" obsessions) if that is indeed your attitude. Yes, the notions you mention ARE rational and useful in *a* materialist/deterministic universe. Unfortunately, in this particular neck of THIS particular universe, as I have shown examples of above, it is in too many cases no longer used in that rational and useful way. And that was my point. Pray tell, what was yours? -- Popular consensus says that reality is based on popular consensus. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr