8 of 11
8
Did Your Brain Make You Do It? (NYT 7/29)
Posted: 17 August 2012 09:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 106 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4538
Joined  2007-08-31

VYAZMA, Sorry you feel like you do. I have explained why I do not like the concept of ‘desert’ and explained why your natural history of morality does not change that. You do not must agree with me, but I think it is a pity that you did not even understand my point. To convince me, you should have shown that our juridical praxis is better off with the concept of ‘desert’ then without. Instead of that you stick in angriness. I don’t know why.

VYAZMA - 17 August 2012 12:02 PM

“Don’t pay any attention to Dead Monkey, he’s just a jester.  He doesn’t know what he’s talking about.”

That was not what I said, nor even meant. Here is what I said:

GdB - 31 July 2012 01:33 PM

Don’t take Dead Monky too serious here… He is not as bad as he seems. It is his way of saying that he doesn’t want to be a philosopher. Stirring up is his business. In other times he would have been a jester. Do not expect that he will give the topic a serious treatment.

Same here:

VYAZMA - 17 August 2012 12:02 PM

“When discussing punishments I never use the term deserves.”

I said:

GdB - 30 July 2012 11:09 AM

To justify punishment I never use the concept of ‘deserving’.

Italics added now.

Don’t ever turn my words again, VYAZMA.

[ Edited: 17 August 2012 09:54 PM by GdB ]
 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 August 2012 10:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 107 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
GdB - 17 August 2012 09:48 PM

VYAZMA, Sorry you feel like you do. I have explained why I do not like the concept of ‘desert’ and explained why your natural history of morality does not change that. You do not must agree with me, but I think it is a pity that you did not even understand my point. To convince me, you should have shown that our juridical praxis is better off with the concept of ‘desert’ then without. Instead of that you stick in angriness. I don’t know why.

I only had to convince you that juridicial praxis is desert! There is no with or without.
As I pointed out before, despite the fact that you say you don’t subscribe to, or “use” the intrinsic human behavior of deserts, you are contradicting yourself. 
The platform of your argument is based on punishments. You’ve repeatedly mentioned punishment in our discussion when in fact just deserts, or deserts, or deserving means accolades, rewards, punishments, pay, scolding, etc…
Nonetheless, I hope you won’t stoop low enough to deny that your central tenant here is punishment. Mainly that many people shouldn’t be judged by their natural behaviors and found to “deserve” their punishments.
So according to this you are using the very metric of just deserts. IE, that people Deserve a form of improved “juridicial praxis”. A more humane or balanced humanistic measure of “correction/reform”.
In fact you are using the metric “just deserts” that you claim you don’t use, that you claim is “self-righteous” and from the bible.
There would be no juridicial praxis without “just deserts”. 
After this it is just a matter of subjectivity.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 August 2012 10:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 108 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4538
Joined  2007-08-31
VYAZMA - 17 August 2012 10:27 PM

There would be no juridicial praxis without “just deserts”. 

Yes, there is: a juridical praxis that is best for society on the long term, in which its subjects want to live free, without fear of being killed, their right or goods taken from them. Such a society must find the best way of coping with their defectors. That has nothing to do with deserts. That has to do with finding the best means for that aim. And nothing with subjective feelings, worst of them, subjective feelings of people who think that their feelings are in accord with objective deserts.

And all this is already in place for a long time. Our juridical system is more or less based on these ideas (at least here in Europe…).

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 August 2012 06:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 109 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

GdB-Yes, there is: a juridical praxis that is best for society on the long term, in which its subjects want to live free, without fear of being killed, their right or goods taken from them. Such a society must find the best way of coping with their defectors. That has nothing to do with deserts. That has to do with finding the best means for that aim. And nothing with subjective feelings, worst of them, subjective feelings of people who think that their feelings are in accord with objective deserts.

And all this is already in place for a long time. Our juridical system is more or less based on these ideas (at least here in Europe…).

Such a society must find what way to deal with it’s defectors? Does it deal with consequences for the defector?
I bet it does. Ergo-just deserts.
There are prisons in Europe the last time checked.
You see the whole time here you have really been advocating for a society that eliminates the impetus for crime in the first place.
You’ve tried to enter that discussion through the back door by expressing a desire to get rid of a natural human behavioral emotion.
Everything you’ve wriiten above is still more fluff. What are your ideas on how society can find the best means to those ends?

Or are you still just content with sayng you don’t practice the “concept” of just deserts.(either a delusion or a lie.)
Putting aside for a minute that you can’t or won’t discuss your ideas on this Utopian method of crime elimination, what are the non-defectors to do in a world where there are no just deserts?  What of the majority of people who play by the rules and wait patiently in line? What are their deserts?
How will the people feel about the defectors who have broken the rules and tried to jump ahead in line?  Will they feel the defectors deserve correction?(defectors! You’ve got me using your hairbrained vocabulary! They’re criminals!)
So three things here GdB:
1. Show me where I was being subjective please.
2. Explain how your system of crime elimination will work.
3. What about the emotions of people who have been playing by the rules?

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 August 2012 10:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 110 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4538
Joined  2007-08-31
VYAZMA - 18 August 2012 06:38 PM

Such a society must find what way to deal with it’s defectors? Does it deal with consequences for the defector?
I bet it does. Ergo-just deserts.

No. But as you consistently fail to understand what I mean I better let it be.

VYAZMA - 18 August 2012 06:38 PM

There are prisons in Europe the last time checked.

Yes, there are. Did I anywhere in this thread say that we should not punish people?

VYAZMA - 18 August 2012 06:38 PM

You see the whole time here you have really been advocating for a society that eliminates the impetus for crime in the first place.

Again, I said no such thing in this thread. The topic is what we do with defectors in our society.

VYAZMA - 18 August 2012 06:38 PM

So three things here GdB:
1. Show me where I was being subjective please.

Sigh… See, you do not understand what I am saying. I do not say you are subjective: I say that you open the door to subjectivity when you think that ‘desert’ is helpful in justifying punishments.

VYAZMA - 18 August 2012 06:38 PM

2. Explain how your system of crime elimination will work.

The discussion was about if ‘desert’ is helpful in justifying punishments. That does not necessary mean that I should have a full designed idea about a ‘system of crime elimination’. (BTW crime will never be eliminated). But here it is: the ideas behind the European countries I know best (Netherlands and Switzerland) are quite good. But, VYAZMA, improvements should come from the sciences: psychology, sociology, criminology. And not from a for revenge yelling mob. (I exaggerate a bit here to clear my point).

VYAZMA - 18 August 2012 06:38 PM

3. What about the emotions of people who have been playing by the rules?

Yeah, that could be difficult. You gave me quite a lesson in that. When people would like to live in the middle ages instead of modernity, what can I do?

VYAZMA - 18 August 2012 06:38 PM

Or are you still just content with sayng you don’t practice the “concept” of just deserts.(either a delusion or a lie.)

Listen VYAZMA, the only one who lied here was you: you cited me wrong a few postings above, and you did that because you think I really said such things: but then you see you are battling a position that I nowhere took; or you do it from ill faith to put me in a bad light.

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 August 2012 11:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 111 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6166
Joined  2006-12-20
VYAZMA - 18 August 2012 06:38 PM

Such a society must find what way to deal with it’s defectors? Does it deal with consequences for the defector?
I bet it does. Ergo-just deserts.

What you are doing is saying you can square just desert with the consequential reasons for punishment.

It’s possible but I think you move just desert a long way from what is ordinarily meant by it. Too far I believe. We all get to take our place in society, whatever that is. This is better for some and worse for others. Someone who is physically more attractive may well have an easier time of it. Can she deserve that? Say you come up with good consequential reasons for that, would that mean she deserves it?

Take this sentence: I’m sending you to jail for twenty years, you deserve it because we estimate this will prevent many would be murders from offending and if we sent you to prison for 2 years it would prevent many less would be murderers. It really doesn’t sound right. What sounds right is to simply say we are doing it because…

Take the trolley problem. There are 5 people on one track and one on the other. The train will hit the five unless you pull the lever and direct the train towards the one. So some harm will be done whatever you do but you cn reduce it by killing the one. Does that mean that person deserves it?

Stephen

[ Edited: 18 August 2012 11:39 PM by StephenLawrence ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 August 2012 10:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 112 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

You are right GdB, I consistently fail to understand what you mean.

[ Edited: 19 August 2012 10:17 PM by VYAZMA ]
 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 August 2012 10:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 113 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

The position you have taken is that partialy justifying punishments on just deserts is regressing back to the Middle Ages.
The position I’m taking is just deserts is an unlearned behavioral response.
So following your logic, rewarding an inventor with a prize for scientific achievement is regressing back to the Middle Ages.

[ Edited: 19 August 2012 10:47 PM by VYAZMA ]
 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 August 2012 11:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 114 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

Stephen-Take this sentence: I’m sending you to jail for twenty years, you deserve it because we estimate this will prevent many would be murders from offending and if we sent you to prison for 2 years it would prevent many less would be murderers. It really doesn’t sound right. What sounds right is to simply say we are doing it because…

What about the people on the jury for example Stephen?  What are their motives?  What about the victims family?  When a light sentence is carried out, what about the protests from the family or the citizens who feel harsher sentences are a deterrent.(never mind if they are a deterent or not.)
Again, what about a corrupt politician who gets wealthy by cheating the treasury?  How do the people who follow the rules and wait in line their whole lives feel?  Are they happy the man goes to jail?  What are they happy for?  That the man has to pay the money back and go to jail in order to be reformed and remove him from society? Or are they happy he wil presumably suffer some?
Of course we have come far enough in this discussion I hope to agree that human’s desire for revenge is natural.
So, knowing this I say so what?  What if just deserts is used to justify-partially-punishments? Isn’t this a system that recognizes that natural desire and clinically and administratively providing that collective release?
Because after all, like GdB said, there will always be crime and punishment.  And you can’t make people not feel happy about punishment.  But the will get collectively angry(or personally angry) if they feel that the adinistrative system is not protecting and satisfying their desires.  People will get mad if murderers and thieves are not punished enough.
A wise society, like I have said from the begininng of this thread, recognizes this and let’s it flow naturally enough.  And of course, it always has, and it always will.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 August 2012 11:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 115 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4538
Joined  2007-08-31
VYAZMA - 19 August 2012 10:33 PM

So following your logic, rewarding an inventor with a prize for scientific achievement is regressing back to the Middle Ages.

No. We can give rewards based on good reasons, just as we give penalties based on good reasons. You were still following your logic.

[ Edited: 20 August 2012 12:30 AM by GdB ]
 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 August 2012 12:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 116 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6166
Joined  2006-12-20
VYAZMA - 19 August 2012 11:00 PM

Isn’t this a system that recognizes that natural desire and clinically and administratively providing that collective release?

Natural desires change depending upon what we believe, this is the bit you don’t get. If people didn’t believe in Libertarian free will their natural desires would be different. if that isn’t the case for you it’s because although you have rejected libertarian free will on a rational bases, your intuitive belief in it hasn’t altered.

  And you can’t make people not feel happy about punishment. 

This is exactly what dropping belief in libertarian free will can do! Let’s not feel happy about making people suffer. I recognise that if the universe had been in a slightly and appropriately different state 1,000 years before my birth it would be me! I’m only lucky that the universe wasn’t in that different state just like the offender is only unlucky his distant past wasn’t a little different.

But the will get collectively angry(or personally angry) if they feel that the adinistrative system is not protecting and satisfying their desires.

Yes, I very much agree, the system must reflect that or there will be trouble. so the only thing to do is get people to see that we don’t have Libertarian free will which changes those desires. Although I must admit this does seem nigh on impossible having tried for numerous years, so I don’t take it too seriously any more, although still keep bashing away as a hobby, for some reason.

  People will get mad if murderers and thieves are not punished enough.
A wise society, like I have said from the begininng of this thread, recognizes this and let’s it flow naturally enough.  And of course, it always has, and it always will.

We are letting it flow naturally enough, that’s what we are doing right now. And the natural flow has been towards less harsh treatment of people, you wouldn’t want the justice system we had 1000 years ago and it will continue to change, hopefully for the better and recognising people don’t hve libertarian free will plays a role in that. The ‘system’ already officially recognises that it’s just people don’t.

I’ll add it’s not just about the justice system. Some one at work is severly depressed because she thinks what has happened is entirely her fault, she could have done otherwise in her actual past but didn’t. She really has got this wrong and it matters, actually she has tried to commit suicide once and now she has gone missing and the police are looking for her. Human psychology and relationships in general are affected by this, it’s a very wide problem. The criminal justice system is just a tiny part of it.

Stephen

[ Edited: 20 August 2012 12:20 AM by StephenLawrence ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 August 2012 09:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 117 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
GdB - 19 August 2012 11:16 PM
VYAZMA - 19 August 2012 10:33 PM

So following your logic, rewarding an inventor with a prize for scientific achievement is regressing back to the Middle Ages.

No. We can give rewards based on good reasons, just as we give penalties based on good reasons. You were still following your logic.

I think we will use the inventor’s invention based on good reasons. We will read the inventor’s studies based on good reasons.
Why did he receive a reward? What was the good reason for the reward?

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 August 2012 09:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 118 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

Stephen you bit at all the easy stuff.  My main question was….Why? Why is it so important to try and “program” people away from thinking just deserts is bad?
Seriously think about it for a moment. 
Your right. The very discussion we are having in this thread is part and parcel of the continuing liberalization(generally)of laws and punishments worldwide.  I conceded that in my second or third post in this thread. I get that.
Absolutely. People, including you and me, will never stop “practicing” or “believing” in libertarian free-will. I wouldn’t want to attempt that, or even fathom the results of that. It’s an abstraction and a surrealistic impossibilty.
So, again my main question is this: What is wrong with just deserts?  Why shouldn’t punishments be partially based on just deserts?
GdB says it’s because it reminds him of the Middle Ages. It seems self-righteous to base punishments on just deserts. 
That’s great for him if he personally is able to supress his desires for rewards and revenge.  But…but, he’s still left with the crime and the punishment anyways!

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 August 2012 10:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 119 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6166
Joined  2006-12-20
VYAZMA - 20 August 2012 09:46 AM

What is wrong with just deserts?  Why shouldn’t punishments be partially based on just deserts?

1) It’s not true.

2) If we treat people just as we should for consequential reasons we have no need for the addition of just deserts.

3) If belief in just deserts is influencing us to treat people other than we should for consequential reasons, it’s keeping us from making moral progress.

4) If we think people have free will and can deserve to suffer we are less interested in preventing bad behaviour in other ways.

5) If we are fortunate and think we deserve it we are less interested in helping the less fortunate who we suppose deserve it.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 August 2012 04:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 120 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

1) It’s not true.

This does not compute.  It isn’t a true/false situation. You’re reply doesn’t even match the statement in syntax.

2) If we treat people just as we should for consequential reasons we have no need for the addition of just deserts.

Just deserts isn’t an addition.

3) If belief in just deserts is influencing us to treat people other than we should for consequential reasons, it’s keeping us from making moral progress.

How do you know moral progress isn’t being made by the system we have had in place.  Who says people are being treated other than they should? You?
I could argue that just deserts is an excellent, natural system of promoting moral progress.
Obviously like GdB, you profess to understand that just deserts is an innate natural behavior, but then turn around and Constantly use the term and concept as if it were something humans choose to use.
Is kissing a belief?  Is grooming a belief? Is deference a belief?

4) If we think people have free will and can deserve to suffer we are less interested in preventing bad behaviour in other ways.

Unprovable. 

5) If we are fortunate and think we deserve it we are less interested in helping the less fortunate who we suppose deserve it.

Unprovable.
I’m done with this discussion now thank you. Wheels are spinning in the mud.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
   
8 of 11
8
 
‹‹ Prime mover      Empathy? ››