baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (10/25/85)
>> What's the rosenist definition of "responsibility"? Does it require >> a soul or something? Responsibility is accountability, a measure of >> participation in a causal chain. Don't you believe in causality? [BABA] > > Responsibility has come to mean two things. First, as > Baba says, there is the "measure of participation in a causal chain". > X is responsible for Y if X caused Y to happen. But then Baba adds in > "accountability", which really has nothing to do with THIS definition of > responsibility. [Rich Rosen] Personal accountability and causality are very much related, if you think about it. Can we not describe personal accountablity as the participation of a *mind* in a causal chain? > If perchance we were able to create > a sentient machine, and we conditioned/programmed it to kill someone, would > the machine be "responsible" for the death of the person? NOT just in that > first sense of "participation in a causal chain", but in the second sense > of taking the blame for what occurred? How can you impose blame on a > non-self-determining entity? Quite simply. It makes *no* difference from a descriptive point of view, nor from a practical/ethical point of view, whether a person's decision is predetermined or not. All that matters is that the decision was made. Consider for a moment two of your "sentient" machines. One of them is programmed to stomp on puppies, and takes out a prize pekingese. The other has a sensor failure and treads fatally on a miniature poodle. Which machine needs reprogramming (punishment)? Which one can reasonably be otherwise expected to do the same thing again? > 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... Well, who are these people? I for one find the notion that the assignment of credit/blame is an end in itself to be pretty weird. It's just a philosophical tool that one uses when organizing the activities of human beings, including one's self. It provides a predictor for future behavior as well as an indication of the appropriateness of reward/punishment. And it is useful whether humans are self-determining or not. > 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. If you seriously think that the reward/punishment of credit/blame is irrational, you ought never to be trusted to raise a child. Or a dog, for that matter. >Yes, I go around killing people, and I don't want to be blamed for it. >Whatever the truth of the matter (I haven't killed or maimed in years...), >the facts are this: we have human beings whose experiences lead them to >become what they grow up to be. To tag them with "responsibility" when >they do something wrong (i.e., punishment) strikes me as extremely shortsighted >and vacuous. To assert that human beings are incapable of learning new behavior patterns (or unlearning old ones) beyond some tender age strikes me as obviously and demonstrably false. > If we smoke in front of our kids, if we show violence and anger >as acceptable behaviors, if we act dishonestly or hatefully when we serve >as examples to our children, they are still "responsible" for what they do >as adults, right? Absolutely. That's what adulthood is all about. If our parents botch their job, it just means that it is going to be harder. The assignment of credit/blame and reward/punishment by social institutions is done in part to guide those who weren't properly oriented as children. (Another part is to be an enticement/deterrent.) > If you want to believe the latter idea about people, then the ball is in > your court to show how such thinking contrary to experience and learning > can (and does) occur. But that's not the point. The point is that experience and learning are not static! Baba
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/30/85)
>>> What's the rosenist definition of "responsibility"? Does it require >>> a soul or something? Responsibility is accountability, a measure of >>> participation in a causal chain. Don't you believe in causality? [BABA] >> Responsibility has come to mean two things. First, as >> Baba says, there is the "measure of participation in a causal chain". >> X is responsible for Y if X caused Y to happen. But then Baba adds in >> "accountability", which really has nothing to do with THIS definition of >> responsibility. [Rich Rosen] > Personal accountability and causality are very much related, if you > think about it. Can we not describe personal accountablity as the > participation of a *mind* in a causal chain? [BABA] My point was that some people seek to define "accountability" for actions for which one does not have causal control over, just because they say so, and they call THIS "responsibility". >> If perchance we were able to create >> a sentient machine, and we conditioned/programmed it to kill someone, would >> the machine be "responsible" for the death of the person? NOT just in that >> first sense of "participation in a causal chain", but in the second sense >> of taking the blame for what occurred? How can you impose blame on a >> non-self-determining entity? > Quite simply. It makes *no* difference from a descriptive point of view, > nor from a practical/ethical point of view, whether a person's decision > is predetermined or not. All that matters is that the decision was > made. Consider for a moment two of your "sentient" machines. One of > them is programmed to stomp on puppies, and takes out a prize pekingese. > The other has a sensor failure and treads fatally on a miniature poodle. > Which machine needs reprogramming (punishment)? Which one can reasonably > be otherwise expected to do the same thing again? Odd that Baba sees "reprogramming" as somehow related to or equivalent to "punishment". "All that matters was that the decision was made". And thus, "someone's got to pay", right? To some, this is "responsibility". >> 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... > Well, who are these people? I for one find the notion that the assignment > of credit/blame is an end in itself to be pretty weird. Yet you seemed to do it yourself above. (No matter, so do a lot of people, sometimes myself included. It's a bad conditioned idea worth shaking, though.) > It's just a philosophical tool that one uses when organizing the activities > of human beings, including one's self. It provides a predictor for future > behavior as well as an indication of the appropriateness of reward/punishment. I find it disheartening that we base morality/law/etc. on systems used BY OTHER PEOPLE to "organize" their systems of classification. 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. >> 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. > If you seriously think that the reward/punishment of credit/blame is > irrational, you ought never to be trusted to raise a child. Or a dog, > for that matter. It's amazing how you deliberately chose to read what you wanted to in that paragraph and ignored what was actually said. If you will examine what you responded to, you will note that it said "you do something wrong you are a bad person who should be punished". It said NOTHING whatever about the merits of reward/punishment as a tool in molding rational behavior. 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. And what of that reward/punishment system as a tool towards reaching a goal? 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? Frankly, your smug and crude remarks about how I "ought never to be trusted to raise a child" smell awful bad. 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. I don't intend my kids to learn that sort of crap. Perhaps you do. Hard to tell, you spend more time being smug that saying something. >>Yes, I go around killing people, and I don't want to be blamed for it. >>Whatever the truth of the matter (I haven't killed or maimed in years...), >>the facts are this: we have human beings whose experiences lead them to >>become what they grow up to be. To tag them with "responsibility" when >>they do something wrong (i.e., punishment) strikes me as extremely >>shortsighted and vacuous. > To assert that human beings are incapable of learning new behavior patterns > (or unlearning old ones) beyond some tender age strikes me as obviously and > demonstrably false. But why should they suddenly WANT to get up and change their behaviors? If these behaviors (wife/child abuse, violent/criminal behavior, etc.) are rewarding to them, why should "punishment" change their minds about it? Certainly we are all "capable" of learning, given motivation and opportunity. But if both are missing, how is this amazing learning process to take place? >>If we smoke in front of our kids, if we show violence and anger >>as acceptable behaviors, if we act dishonestly or hatefully when we serve >>as examples to our children, they are still "responsible" for what they do >>as adults, right? > Absolutely. That's what adulthood is all about. If our parents botch their > job, it just means that it is going to be harder. The assignment of > credit/blame and reward/punishment by social institutions is done in part > to guide those who weren't properly oriented as children. (Another part > is to be an enticement/deterrent.) That's pure unadulterated bullshit. If the job has been botched, it has been botched. The resulting adult has behaviors engendered in him/her make that person what he/she is. To claim that these "social institutions" are intended to guide those who weren't properly oriented strikes me as bogus. Is there any real guidance done? Other than punishment ("putting away" criminals and mentally ill people)? Frankly, this attitude of "any thing I botch up as a parent is no big deal, it'll simply make the kid's life 'harder'" sounds like a manifestation of a lackadaisical attitude toward parenting in general that seems quite widespread. (WHO wouldn't you trust to raise a child?) >> If you want to believe the latter idea about people, then the ball is in >> your court to show how such thinking contrary to experience and learning >> can (and does) occur. > But that's not the point. The point is that experience and learning > are not static! In the absence of motivation/opportunity/incentive to learn new behaviors, why not be satisfied with the old ones, as long as they "work" for you? Why do wife/child beaters, alcoholics, people who can't hold jobs because of emotional problems, etc. ALL changing their behavior? Those that aren't may be perfectly comfortable with the way things are. They have learned these ways as a result of years of conditioning and role-modeling from their parents/etc. So, you BLAME them for this? -- "Meanwhile, I was still thinking..." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (11/02/85)
>>> 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. >[Rosen] > >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? 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. 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. Baba