If we judged no one for having trouble controlling an instinct, and we treated such behavior as unfair, there would be no justice system left. No one would be held accountable for their actions, or, at least, they would not be judged.

(April 2, 2019 at 6:09 pm)Belaqua Wrote:

(April 2, 2019 at 5:57 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: Blind rage

Nobody's in favor of blind rage

Ahem...

Boru

(April 2, 2019 at 7:14 pm)Shell B Wrote: If we judged no one for having trouble controlling an instinct, and we treated such behavior as unfair, there would be no justice system left. No one would be held accountable for their actions, or, at least, they would not be judged.

OK, maybe. But that's a change of subject. He said:

Quote:the behavior is not to be encouraged

He's not in favor of "blind rage."

(April 2, 2019 at 7:14 pm)Shell B Wrote: If we judged no one for having trouble controlling an instinct, and we treated such behavior as unfair, there would be no justice system left. No one would be held accountable for their actions, or, at least, they would not be judged.

I think we're moving in that direction.  Certainly, I've seen a lot of talk in these forums about how free will is essentially illusory due to material determinism.  And brain studies on death row inmates show by far that there are brain structure issues that lead to their behaviors.

But consider other instincts.  Should we tax obese people more because their health care is likely to pose a burden to taxpayers or the co-insured?  Should we be offended at their unwillingness not to pose an inconvenience on those around them, and shout at them that we feel "sorry for your family?"  No-- I think we understand that the brain is hard-wired at a genetic level to prefer foods that are highly detrimental, and that the brain systems involved have such high priority that overriding them consciously is difficult (or for some, impossible).

I think the point of punishment is that 1) it's a punitive response to a deliberate abuse of free will; 2) it is meant to discourage negative behaviors by pre-emptive threat or by conditioning via negative reinforcement; 3) it is meant, in the case of incarceration, to protect the general populace from a few bad apples.

If you are a determinist, then (1) really should go right out the window.  If a behavior is not controllable by the person, then (2) will fail.  It's (3) that we have to focus on-- you don't have to demonize people with a strong predisposition toward expression of anger to say, "Look. . . you know we can't let you free in an environment where you are likely to behave this way.  You need to be removed, unless you are willing to undergo treatments (like drugs) that we think are likely to minimize your behavior."

(April 2, 2019 at 7:43 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(April 2, 2019 at 7:14 pm)Shell B Wrote: If we judged no one for having trouble controlling an instinct, and we treated such behavior as unfair, there would be no justice system left. No one would be held accountable for their actions, or, at least, they would not be judged.

I think we're moving in that direction.  Certainly, I've seen a lot of talk in these forums about how free will is essentially illusory due to material determinism.  And brain studies on death row inmates show by far that there are brain structure issues that lead to their behaviors.

But consider other instincts.  Should we tax obese people more because their health care is likely to pose a burden to taxpayers or the co-insured?  Should we be offended at their unwillingness not to pose an inconvenience on those around them, and shout at them that we feel "sorry for your family?"  No-- I think we understand that the brain is hard-wired at a genetic level to prefer foods that are highly detrimental, and that the brain systems involved have such high priority that overriding them consciously is difficult (or for some, impossible).

I think the point of punishment is that 1) it's a punitive response to a deliberate abuse of free will; 2) it is meant to discourage negative behaviors by pre-emptive threat or by conditioning via negative reinforcement; 3) it is meant, in the case of incarceration, to protect the general populace from a few bad apples.

If you are a determinist, then (1) really should go right out the window.  If a behavior is not controllable by the person, then (2) will fail.  It's (3) that we have to focus on-- you don't have to demonize people with a strong predisposition toward expression of anger to say, "Look. . . you know we can't let you free in an environment where you are likely to behave this way.  You need to be removed, unless you are willing to undergo treatments (like drugs) that we think are likely to minimize your behavior."

I don't agree that 2 fails in hard determinism.

(April 2, 2019 at 7:56 pm)Yonadav Wrote: I don't agree that 2 fails in hard determinism.

That's right. (1) fails in hard determinism, because it's incompatible with the idea of free will. Moralism very much depends on a Biblical view of free will, in my opinion. I'd also say that demonization of behaviors is essentially Biblical as well-- we have discovered Evil to be present in a person, and feel justified in burning them at the proverbial stake.

(2) Isn't really a moral view-- it's more like Pavlov or Skinner: the idea that people can be conditioned to change their behavior, and that the point of punishment is to develop an aversion to damaging rage or other criminal states. Given the rates of recidivism, I don't think that prison in particular is an effective response to rage. You'd probably have better luck with an electroshock collar that zapped someone whenever their blood pressure and heart rate spiked.

(April 2, 2019 at 6:50 pm)Belaqua Wrote:

(April 2, 2019 at 6:11 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: I guess I’m not sure what Benny is asking for then.

This is from Benny's OP:

Quote:In general, while an aggressive man is clearly a menace, and the behavior is not to be encouraged, I'd also say that demonizing people who have a problem controlling ANY instinct is unfair, and unlikely to produce good results.

This seems to be what he's asking for.

I agree. I don’t think it’s right to demonize people who have impulse control issues in general. Demonizing, and tolerating/excusing are different things though. Just so everyone is clear on my position. The hard part is determining which folks truly cannot control their impulses, and which folks can, but choose not to.  Another question to ask is why many people with impulse control issues don’t seek help before they harm someone.

(April 2, 2019 at 8:23 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(April 2, 2019 at 6:50 pm)Belaqua Wrote: This is from Benny's OP:


This seems to be what he's asking for.

I agree. I don’t think it’s right to demonize people who have impulse control issues in general. Demonizing, and tolerating/excusing are different things though. Just so everyone is clear on my position. The hard part is determining which folks truly cannot control their impulses, and which folks can, but choose not to.  Another question to ask is why many people with impulse control issues don’t seek help before they harm someone.

From where I stand, I can't imagine that this set of people is larger than zero.  It's one thing to be deliberately aggressive-- unwanted hand on the shoulder, too-tight handshake, even getting violent just because you think you'll get what you want, and you expect to get away with it-- a lot of dick moves like that.  But to lose control of one's emotions and even behavior on purpose?  Is that even possible? Because it seems like a paradox to me-- "I choose to lose control."

I think part of the problem is that people justify their lack of control, and that is taken at face value.  Does a man who says, "She had it coming" really go into the scenario wanting to tee off?  Or is he trying to examine that moment and justify it after the fact, to absolve himself of moral culpability?  (I never said that, but that's the kind of thing we'd expect a particularly abusive man to say, right?)

I think "she had it coming" if better expressed would be more like "I felt threatened, trapped, and isolated, and something in me took over.  I felt like I was losing control of the situation, and I panicked."

---

(April 2, 2019 at 8:23 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Another question to ask is why many people with impulse control issues don’t seek help before they harm someone.

Much of manhood in our culture is defined by independence. You're the bread winner, you have to carry your burden in silence like a man. Complaining or asking for help is burdensome to others. There's that downside to a patriarchy-- if you are a man, you are expected to be unconditionally strong.

(April 2, 2019 at 8:50 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(April 2, 2019 at 8:23 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Another question to ask is why many people with impulse control issues don’t seek help before they harm someone.

Much of manhood in our culture is defined by independence.  You're the bread winner, you have to carry your burden in silence like a man.  Complaining or asking for help is burdensome to others.  There's that downside to a patriarchy-- if you are a man, you are expected to be unconditionally strong.

Don't worry. Feminists generally also recognise that the patriarchy hurts men as well. We're fighting to make the world a better place for all genders.

(April 3, 2019 at 1:37 am)Mathilda Wrote:

(April 2, 2019 at 8:50 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Much of manhood in our culture is defined by independence.  You're the bread winner, you have to carry your burden in silence like a man.  Complaining or asking for help is burdensome to others.  There's that downside to a patriarchy-- if you are a man, you are expected to be unconditionally strong.

Don't worry. Feminists generally also recognise that the patriarchy hurts men as well. We're fighting to make the world a better place for all genders.

With all due respect, I think that feminism is likely to limit what kinds of feelings and behaviors might be accepted in men, without much regard to the natural makeup of the male of the human species.  Essentially: "You're free to be whatever kind of man you want-- so long as you want to be the kind of man we envision in our modern society." It's nice that this consideration is extended, but it may not be possible for all men to adapt to those standards.

In rats, increases in population density led to increases in homosexuality and in aggressive behaviors-- I don't know if they were specifically male or not.  But it seems to me that men likely have a greater "personal space" than women, and that as we transition into high-density city life, this is likely to lead to a constant and seemingly mysterious increase in anxiety and in population-controlling behaviors: increases in homosexuality or asexuality, increased violence, increased cases of suicide, and so on.

I think your school shooters or your TV throwers are likely at the leading tail of the Bell Curve.  But I'm quite certain that we are not adapted as a species for this kind of high-density life, and I think we'll see that we'll see a sudden increase of rage and violent behaviors as we get to density levels that even the average male cannot tolerate.

Just speculation, mind you, but I have a hunch we'll see many, many more school shootings, suicide/homicides, and so on as the population increases.