Morality in Nature

[genkaus]

The community totally behaves like a self-aware being. It changes its mores, it responds to crises, it even develops new ways to monitor itself (clay tablets, newspapers, Facebook). And parts of the brain are very much aware of each other-- some parts of the brain specifically have the function of monitoring the function of other brain parts.

I think basically you're special pleading-- awareness is what you define it, but any other thing that meets your criteria is faced with new conditions and criteria.

I disagree. Individuals monitor what happens in a community and individuals respond to crises, phenomenon explained by individual self-awareness. The community as a whole does not display self-awareness. It does not meet the criteria.

[bennyboy]

I disagree. Individuals monitor what happens in a community and individuals respond to crises, phenomenon explained by individual self-awareness. The community as a whole does not display self-awareness. It does not meet the criteria.

Some groups of people certainly monitor other groups of people, and modify the ways of dealing with them. How is this different from a group of neurons monitoring other groups of neurons, and modifying the way they are monitored? (insert next special criterion here. . . )

Anyway, back to morality. All this stuff about monitoring the monitor has shown that a brain, if part if it is dysfunctional, can lead to a person doing a bad behavior, like a murder. But what you haven't explained is why we should interpret this as a moral failing, which requires punishment. Why wouldn't you interpret it as a mental disability, and see that as proof that a person SHOULDN'T be punished?

This is a simple argument:
1. No healthy person would kill unnecessarily.
2. A serial killer is therefore obviously unhealthy.
3. A person shouldn't be morally accountable for his own illnesses.
4. A peson therefore can't be morally acountable for serial killing.

You don't shout "Fuck you for having epilepsy," and beat someone because they're blocking traffic, do you? Normally, blocking traffic is against the law. Should the epileptic be ticketed for blocking traffic? What if someone had a stroke, and caused a fatal multi-car pileup? Would you punish them for having a stroke?

[genkaus]

Some groups of people certainly monitor other groups of people, and modify the ways of dealing with them. How is this different from a group of neurons monitoring other groups of neurons, and modifying the way they are monitored? (insert next special criterion here. . . )

No special criterion. The neurons themselves are not self-aware, which is why generation of self-awareness enters at that stage. The individuals are already self-aware - which is why the community as a whole is not.

Anyway, back to morality. All this stuff about monitoring the monitor has shown that a brain, if part if it is dysfunctional, can lead to a person doing a bad behavior, like a murder. But what you haven't explained is why we should interpret this as a moral failing, which requires punishment. Why wouldn't you interpret it as a mental disability, and see that as proof that a person SHOULDN'T be punished?

On the contrary, if the bad behavior (murder) is the result of a part of brain being dysfunctional, then it is not interpreted as a moral failing and the person is not punished for it.

This is a simple argument:
1. No healthy person would kill unnecessarily.
2. A serial killer is therefore obviously unhealthy.
3. A person shouldn't be morally accountable for his own illnesses.
4. A peson therefore can't be morally acountable for serial killing.

Premise 1 is wrong.
A healthy person can kill unnecessarily.
And most killers do have a reason for killing.

You don't shout "Fuck you for having epilepsy," and beat someone because they're blocking traffic, do you? Normally, blocking traffic is against the law. Should the epileptic be ticketed for blocking traffic? What if someone had a stroke, and caused a fatal multi-car pileup? Would you punish them for having a stroke?

Given that epilepsy is a chronic condition, that person should not have been driving in the first place. So yes, he should be ticketed for blocking traffic. Similarly, if the stroke patient had a reasonable expectation of having a stroke, then he too can be held accountable for the fatal multi-car pile-up. Although, prosecution might be a tad difficult on the account of the pile-up being fatal.

[bennyboy]

Some groups of people certainly monitor other groups of people, and modify the ways of dealing with them. How is this different from a group of neurons monitoring other groups of neurons, and modifying the way they are monitored? (insert next special criterion here. . . )

No special criterion. The neurons themselves are not self-aware, which is why generation of self-awareness enters at that stage. The individuals are already self-aware - which is why the community as a whole is not.

How do you know a person is aware? I think you're moving the goalposts here. Since you keep making words mean what they don't mean, I need your most precise definition of awareness to continue with this discussion. My prediction is that you'll give a definition, I'll show how something meets that definition, and you'll start piling on extra criteria. I have good evidence for supposing this prediction to be likely to come true.

Anyway, back to morality. All this stuff about monitoring the monitor has shown that a brain, if part if it is dysfunctional, can lead to a person doing a bad behavior, like a murder. But what you haven't explained is why we should interpret this as a moral failing, which requires punishment. Why wouldn't you interpret it as a mental disability, and see that as proof that a person SHOULDN'T be punished?

On the contrary, if the bad behavior (murder) is the result of a part of brain being dysfunctional, then it is not interpreted as a moral failing and the person is not punished for it.

First of all, baloney. Killers in the states are constantly sent to death row, when seeing 5 seconds of an interview would show they should have been in an institution, not walking among free people.

Second, what if the person's psychology is shattered by watching his mother and sister's heads get blown off by a cruise missile intended for a distant uncle? What if he was the victim of serious child abuse? What if he's been brainwashed? What if he's exposed to an insufficient diet, so that his brain isn't functioning normally? What if he's addicted to drugs at a young age, and the drugs destroy his ability to respond to social cues, or to have the feelings of sympathy necessary for a moral view to function?

This is a simple argument:
1. No healthy person would kill unnecessarily.
2. A serial killer is therefore obviously unhealthy.
3. A person shouldn't be morally accountable for his own illnesses.
4. A peson therefore can't be morally acountable for serial killing.

Premise 1 is wrong.
A healthy person can kill unnecessarily.
And most killers do have a reason for killing.

No he can't. A person willing to kill unnecessarily is not mentally healthy. Either he's received damage to his brain, or his world view has been broken. Either way, he couldn't have chosen to have the brain damage, or to have his world view broken. Even in the case of a total sociopathic killer, there's some kind of reason WHY he has the impulse to kill, and WHY he doesn't resist the impulse, which is beyond his control.

And a killer can provide whatever reasons they want; I have reasons to kill about 20 people a day, but I don't-- because I'm mentally capable of restraining my impulses.

Given that epilepsy is a chronic condition, that person should not have been driving in the first place. So yes, he should be ticketed for blocking traffic. Similarly, if the stroke patient had a reasonable expectation of having a stroke, then he too can be held accountable for the fatal multi-car pile-up. Although, prosecution might be a tad difficult on the account of the pile-up being fatal.

The specific examples aren't important. The point is that there are many cases in which due to a condition beyond a person's control, they may BEHAVE in ways that are normally considered immoral, but with no intention to do so. And ultimately, ALL people are like this-- you just have to go back farther to find that deterministic event that led to the resultant "crime."

[genkaus]

How do you know a person is aware? I think you're moving the goalposts here. Since you keep making words mean what they don't mean, I need your most precise definition of awareness to continue with this discussion. My prediction is that you'll give a definition, I'll show how something meets that definition, and you'll start piling on extra criteria. I have good evidence for supposing this prediction to be likely to come true.

You can find my definition of the terms in the first line of Wikipedia entries about them.

Awareness - Awareness is the state or ability to perceive, to feel, or to be conscious of events, objects, or sensory patterns.

Self-awareness - Self-awareness is the capacity for introspection and the ability to recognize oneself as an individual separate from the environment and other individuals.

For definitions of rest of the terms used, look up their respective Wikipedia entries.

The definition, however, does not tell you how to ascertain the existence of these functions.

First of all, baloney. Killers in the states are constantly sent to death row, when seeing 5 seconds of an interview would show they should have been in an institution, not walking among free people.

An error in practice does not disprove the principle. If the mental capacity of the party is compromised, then he cannot be held liable for his actions. Establishing the compromise is a different matter altogether.

Second, what if the person's psychology is shattered by watching his mother and sister's heads get blown off by a cruise missile intended for a distant uncle? What if he was the victim of serious child abuse? What if he's been brainwashed? What if he's exposed to an insufficient diet, so that his brain isn't functioning normally? What if he's addicted to drugs at a young age, and the drugs destroy his ability to respond to social cues, or to have the feelings of sympathy necessary for a moral view to function?

He is held accountable as he should be. Same in the second case - unless the abuse resulted in brain damage. Same in the third. The extent of compromise resulting from the diet would've to be ascertained before making the call. The extent of compromise resulting from the drugs would've have to be ascertained before making that call - however, having feelings of sympathy is not necessary for a moral view to function.

No he can't. A person willing to kill unnecessarily is not mentally healthy. Either he's received damage to his brain, or his world view has been broken. Either way, he couldn't have chosen to have the brain damage, or to have his world view broken. Even in the case of a total sociopathic killer, there's some kind of reason WHY he has the impulse to kill, and WHY he doesn't resist the impulse, which is beyond his control.

Wrong on multiple counts. A person can be mentally healthy and be willing to kill. I have no idea what you mean by a "broken" worldview - but it does not qualify for being mentally unhealthy. Depending upon what you mean by a broken world-view, I'd say a person can choose to have it broken. And in case of the sociopath, why'd you assume that resisting the impulse is beyond his control? It isn't.

And a killer can provide whatever reasons they want; I have reasons to kill about 20 people a day, but I don't-- because I'm mentally capable of restraining my impulses.

As is the killer - unless you can show that he isn't.

The specific examples aren't important. The point is that there are many cases in which due to a condition beyond a person's control, they may BEHAVE in ways that are normally considered immoral, but with no intention to do so. And ultimately, ALL people are like this-- you just have to go back farther to find that deterministic event that led to the resultant "crime."

That deterministic event that leads to the resultant crime is called "making a choice".

[bennyboy]

That deterministic event that leads to the resultant crime is called "making a choice".

Okay. At least you're consistent.

I accept moral ideas, including those of punishment, exactly because I don't accept the deterministic definition of free will, and of self, that you do. I take choices to be real things, not labels for reducing a complex environment down to a single behavioral impulse.

I don't think your position makes sense. To accept a determinist view, in which a person ultimately has a choice of 1 option in every scenario, means that morality has no meaning.

I would hope that your view on crime fighting is a statistical one, a la Minority Report-- because no other stance makes sense GIVEN determinism.

[genkaus]

Okay. At least you're consistent.

I accept moral ideas, including those of punishment, exactly because I don't accept the deterministic definition of free will, and of self, that you do. I take choices to be real things, not labels for reducing a complex environment down to a single behavioral impulse.

I don't think your position makes sense. To accept a determinist view, in which a person ultimately has a choice of 1 option in every scenario, means that morality has no meaning.

Fair enough. I don't think your view of free-will and morality makes sense either. The idea that morality can only apply to non-deterministic choices would require that there was no specific cause or reason behind the choice and we know from experience that that is not the case with our choices.

I would hope that your view on crime fighting is a statistical one, a la Minority Report-- because no other stance makes sense GIVEN determinism.

Don't know about that. Never seen the movie.

[bennyboy]

Okay. At least you're consistent.

I accept moral ideas, including those of punishment, exactly because I don't accept the deterministic definition of free will, and of self, that you do. I take choices to be real things, not labels for reducing a complex environment down to a single behavioral impulse.

I don't think your position makes sense. To accept a determinist view, in which a person ultimately has a choice of 1 option in every scenario, means that morality has no meaning.

Fair enough. I don't think your view of free-will and morality makes sense either. The idea that morality can only apply to non-deterministic choices would require that there was no specific cause or reason behind the choice and we know from experience that that is not the case with our choices.

If it's a deterministic choice, then it really has only one possible outcome, so I would say the idea that there's a choice at all is an illusion-- I'd just call it data processing. If you want to make the assertion that it seems to you there are no real choices, but only data processing, then that position will make sense to me. But it's much harder to get morally outraged when "data processor Bob Smith" inevitably (even though it's unpredictable or surprising) kills someone.

And here's something on a slightly different note. What if a murderer is surprised that he has murdered someone? What if after stabbing someone 10 times, his expression suddenly changes, he drops the knife, looks around confused, and says, "I. . . I. . . what just. . . happened?" In this case, the processing of the brain leads to the murder, but the conscious agent may have had no chance to mediate the behavior. Does the conscious agent have to take responsibility for unconscious mechanisms over which it has no control?

[Angrboda]

@bennyboy:

How does your concept of free-will make sense of moral culpability and moral desert? What are we holding the person accountable for and why? And, who (or what) are we holding accountable?

[genkaus]

If it's a deterministic choice, then it really has only one possible outcome, so I would say the idea that there's a choice at all is an illusion-- I'd just call it data processing. If you want to make the assertion that it seems to you there are no real choices, but only data processing, then that position will make sense to me. But it's much harder to get morally outraged when "data processor Bob Smith" inevitably (even though it's unpredictable or surprising) kills someone.

If you recall your post on artificial neural networks, choices are made in the context of data processing as well. The fact that those choices are determined by certain preset weights does not change the fact that those are, in fact, choices. The only difference between the ANN and a human is that a human can set the weights for his own NN whereas the ANN cannot - for now.

Your idea here seems to be that the only "real choice" possible would be the one where there is no determining cause. Which means a true choice must necessarily be random and arbitrary. But attaching moral culpability to something random and arbitrary seems nonsensical to me. I find it much easier to be morally outraged at "data processor Bob Smith" than at "random event Bob Smith".

And here's something on a slightly different note. What if a murderer is surprised that he has murdered someone? What if after stabbing someone 10 times, his expression suddenly changes, he drops the knife, looks around confused, and says, "I. . . I. . . what just. . . happened?" In this case, the processing of the brain leads to the murder, but the conscious agent may have had no chance to mediate the behavior. Does the conscious agent have to take responsibility for unconscious mechanisms over which it has no control?

That would depend on a number of factors. As a matter of course, the conscious agent - which is a form of brain processing - is in control of the other processes requiring directed motion. So, assuming the perpetrator here is not lying, his condition would be an anomaly and his responsibility would be determined by the cause of that anomaly.

If he specifically induced the dissociative state with the purpose of establishing a defense for committing a murder, then he'd be held responsible for the crime. Murder 1 all the way through.

If he induced the state by intake of drugs or alcohol, while having no prior intention to commit the crime, its partial responsibility - manslaughter.

If he suffered from some kind of breakdown, then his responsibility would be determined by the cause of the breakdown.

If he suffers from a medical condition - like somnambulism - then his responsibility is even less and would depend upon his prior knowledge of the condition.

Typically, in the last two cases, punishment is not called for - however treatment is. And if he had prior knowledge of his condition or a reasonable expectation of breakdown, then the choice of not seeking treatment would increase his culpability.