rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (02/04/84)
I keep hearing in both net.religion and net.women about the notions
of guilt and punishment. Net.religion is really the appropriate place
for discussion, but I am posting to net.women also because of part of
a tangential subdiscussion about punishment for rapists.
Upfront, I don't believe in this malarchy {n., government by very bad
people [?????]} about one's choices and actions. We've got chemicals
in our bodies, and we take action based on those chemicals. If the
actions a person takes are deemed detrimental to members of society, society
is given the right to take action against that person.
But what precisely is that action? Is it punishment? [YOU'VE BEEN A
NAUGHTY BOY/GIRL AND YOU'RE BEING PUNISHED BY BEING PUT IN A NASTY PLACE
SO YOU'LL NEVER DO THAT AGAIN!] Is it simply stopping the person from
doing whatever they did again? (Does incarceration help to accomplish this?)
Is it providing the victim with restitution/assistance in recovering from the
person's action? (At the expense of the perpetrator?)
Our society's current viewpoint seems to be along the lines of "you did
something---it was wrong---you must be punished for it". What does this
really accomplish? If someone rapes, murders, or steals, and is
incarcerated as a result, what has been accomplished? Keeping this
person "off the streets" for a few years? Some people may get scared enough
by incarceration that their behavior does indeed change, but most would
simply continue in their old chemically ingrained behavior patterns when
they are released. Since we are not really all that knowledgeable about
goal-directed behavior modification as A Clockwork Orange would have us
believe (realizing that even in that book the reality was that *they* weren't
all that knowledgeable), results in changing the behavior of incarcerated
criminals are limited, and there are those who believe that such techniques,
if used, would violate one's civil rights (despite the fact that such behavior
modification occurs continuously through mass media and societal
reinforcement). And what about the victim? Since it is beyond our abilities
(probably ever) to change the fact that a person has been raped or murdered
as a result of another person's violence, what should be done for the
victims and/or their survivors?
I don't have a lot of answers, but I have a few questions. What is our
motivation for seeking punishment for the guilty? If a person's violent
anti-social behavior that is caused by hormonal/chemical ibalances can be
altered and verified through therapy, chemo- or psycho-, then is "punishment"
still important to "teach that person a lesson"? Why? And does society do
its part for the victim? What is that "part"? To what extent are current
societal attitudes towards these things a result of religious indoctrination?
PLEASE feel free to limit the resulting discussion to a single newsgroup. The
only reason for the multiple postings was because of the variety of sources
that sparked me to write this.
--
Pardon me for breathing...
Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlrsnafu@ihuxi.UUCP (Dave Wallis) (02/04/84)
Rich,
I think your notion that our behavior is based only on chemical
reactions deserves a closer look. This is not really a new question -
philosophers have been looking at it for a long time. On the micro level
(i.e. at the cellular level) it seems clearly evident that you are
correct - cell actions are governed by the chemical reactions on which
they are based. But do those chemical interactions really generalize to
the macro level?
What you have implied in your article is that our behavior is
completely determined by our chemistry - i.e. that we have no free will. Your
position would have all of humankind wandering the planet as nothing
more than chemical robots, making no rational decisions, since all
actions and reactions would have been pre-programmed.
I find this idea very hard to accept. The situation that would
result from this is what we identify in animals as "instinct." In
examining the world around him, man has long noticed that there is
something "different" about him - man has been able to improve his
position in the environment, develop tools, written language, etc.
What could have given man his ability to grow and learn except the
ability to think and make decisions on a level other than the
instinctual one?
The very fact that we can question whether or not our decisions
are based on free will or chemistry indicates that mere chemical
reaction does not fully explain our thought and decision making
processes.
What this all boils down to in this discussion is that I think
people can and should be held accountable for their own actions. I
agree that the rules, laws and customs of a society are arbitrary -
any other set would undoubtedly work just as well (or better), but
that set of rules is really what enables a society to exist at all.
They provide a common ground - a way for one person to predict what
another will do, or to decide what others expect of him. Except in
instances where a severe chemical imbalance prevents normal operation
of our decision making process, I believe that people *do* have the
ability to determine whether a particular behavior falls inside or
outside of the behavior deemed acceptable by the particular society.
Note that I do not deny that chemistry has anything to do with
decision making, but I do disagree that it is the only thing that
governs it.
A problem does occur when one or more individuals disagree on what
the rules of the society are. Most societies have a method for
resolving these disagreements - they vote. If an individual defies the
rules that define the society, the society really has no choice other
than to remove that individual from the society. If they did not, it
would soon be the case that nobody would be able to determine what was
proper or improper behavior, and the "society" would cease to exist.
I suppose there would be nothing to prevent the rapists from
starting their own culture where rape is considered the friendly thing
to do (same with any other criminal group), but I seriously doubt that
it would be a stable culture for long. Cultures (societies) exist
because they are advantageous to man, and the advantage is that they
provide an environment of cooperation and mutual goals. A society
based on rules that are anti-cooperative would not provide an
advantage for its members, and therefore would not survive long.
So there you have my ideas on the matter. Sorry to get on my
soapbox for so long, but some things require more of a response than
"I disagree!". I'll be happy to respond to any responses/flames, with
the exception of the really off-the-wall flames which I use to line my
cats' litter box.
--
Dave Wallis
ihnp4!ihuxi!snafu
AT&T Technologies, Inc.
(312) 979-5894