Products of our Environments

[hopeandjoy]

The fact that recidivism rates are 60% in the US and 50% in the UK suggests something else, that people who enter into prison are criminals who need to be locked up, not that innocent people who are wrongly convicted are gradually morphed by the environment in the prison (although it'd be interesting to see statistics on that if they exist!)

Or it means that the average criminal (whether still a criminal, reformed, or wrongly convicted) can't get a job, not only because of the shitty economy but also because no one will hire an ex-convict. Thus, they can't buy food, own a house, have something to do, etc. Most end up turning to crime again. Now, of course there are some people that are just honestly evil, but often it is for that reason people end up back in jail.

 

[Zuu]

Oh?
Zoosadism.

Well, that seems indicative of mental illness. I think most would agree that mental illness is not a choice and people with mental illnesses aren't really aware of what's "evil" about their actions, in contrast with someone who is in a mentally "normal" condition who would actively strive towards evil deeds (which i also find unlikely). But i'm out of my element in this and won't push this hypothesis too far.

 

[Music Dragon]

Not fully sure what you are trying to communicate here. How are we justified in judging people who's actions are based on influences they had no control over being exposed to?

I honestly don't think I can make this any clearer. We are justified in judging people because judging people influences them. By judging people for their actions, we reduce the likelihood of said actions being repeated, which is what we want. There you go. It's pretty straightforward.

Let me illustrate this using an example. Let's say a man is caught stealing from a shop. Now, if people judge him and treat him negatively as a result - if he is held responsible for his actions - then he, and everyone else, will know not to steal, because there are repercussions. If we don't judge thieves and let them off scot-free, however, then people will be much more inclined to steal, probably to the point where society wouldn't really be able to function properly. Therefore, we are justified in judging people.

In fact, this is the very reason why we, as a species, have developed a sense of right and wrong: because some actions are beneficial to us and/or the group we belong to, while other actions are detrimental. Morals reinforce positive behaviour while discouraging negative behaviour.

In any case: if you honestly don't believe we are justified in judging others for their actions, then you're not justified in complaining about it in the first place. We can't stop judging people. Our environment and our genes and our basic instincts tell us to judge people. It's out of our control, isn't it?

So. If you believe that influencing people for the better is possible - and you seem to think so, given this quote:

Because, as I hope I've explained, people can be influenced all throughout their life, and hopefully this will act as an influence to help people rethink how they judge others.

... then you surely agree that blaming people for their crimes is also justified, as it is a means to influence people.

 

[bulbasaur]

Or it means that the average criminal (whether still a criminal, reformed, or wrongly convicted) can't get a job, not only because of the shitty economy but also because no one will hire an ex-convict. Thus, they can't buy food, own a house, have something to do, etc. Most end up turning to crime again. Now, of course there are some people that are just honestly evil, but often it is for that reason people end up back in jail.

Or that, yes.

 

[Light]

Oh?
Zoosadism.

And, obvious mental illness aside, I would still say it is their twisted sense of pleasure that drives them, not choosing to be evil.

@Music Dragon: I think we have the right to judge people in order to influence their future behavior, but I do not think we have any right to think less of a person of them. And calling someone evil crosses this boundary, in my opinion.

 

[Coroxn]

I honestly don't think I can make this any clearer. We are justified in judging people because judging people influences them. By judging people for their actions, we reduce the likelihood of said actions being repeated, which is what we want. There you go. It's pretty straightforward.

Let me illustrate this using an example. Let's say a man is caught stealing from a shop. Now, if people judge him and treat him negatively as a result - if he is held responsible for his actions - then he, and everyone else, will know not to steal, because there are repercussions. If we don't judge thieves and let them off scot-free, however, then people will be much more inclined to steal, probably to the point where society wouldn't really be able to function properly. Therefore, we are justified in judging people.

In fact, this is the very reason why we, as a species, have developed a sense of right and wrong: because some actions are beneficial to us and/or the group we belong to, while other actions are detrimental. Morals reinforce positive behaviour while discouraging negative behaviour.

In any case: if you honestly don't believe we are justified in judging others for their actions, then you're not justified in complaining about it in the first place. We can't stop judging people. Our environment and our genes and our basic instincts tell us to judge people. It's out of our control, isn't it?

So. If you believe that influencing people for the better is possible - and you seem to think so, given this quote:

... then you surely agree that blaming people for their crimes is also justified, as it is a means to influence people.

Ah, thank you for explaining.
Well, this is something I have referred to before. It's perfectly justified to punish people for their actions, because, of course, if you don't punish them, they'll be influenced into thinking this action is okay and will do it as often as they like. What I'm suggesting isn't so much a practical change as it is a change in viewpoint-whilst the thief should be punished, he should not be despised, as he is merely a product of his environment. To understand that it is merely inferior circumstance, not inferior being, that causes him to become the thief in the first place.

 

[Music Dragon]

@Music Dragon: I think we have the right to judge people in order to influence their future behavior, but I do not think we have any right to think less of a person of them. And calling someone evil crosses this boundary, in my opinion.

I don't remember calling anybody evil. Nevertheless, I'm not sure I agree with you, though that depends on what you mean by thinking "less of a person" of someone. I would never stop regarding a human as human, if that's what you mean, but I still have opinions on people. I look down on some and respect others.

Out of curiosity, regarding "evil": what is your opinion on people who literally have no ability to care for, or empathize with, others (i.e. psychopaths)?

Ah, thank you for explaining.
Well, this is something I have referred to before. It's perfectly justified to punish people for their actions, because, of course, if you don't punish them, they'll be influenced into thinking this action is okay and will do it as often as they like. What I'm suggesting isn't so much a practical change as it is a change in viewpoint-whilst the thief should be punished, he should not be despised, as he is merely a product of his environment. To understand that it is merely inferior circumstance, not inferior being, that causes him to become the thief in the first place.

Isn't his being a product of this inferior circumstance? What is the relevance of whether or not he was inevitably going to become a thief? If I look at a pretty flower, I won't think "this flower did not choose to become beautiful; therefore, it is not beautiful". So why can't I judge a person for what he is, just because "inferior circumstance" led to him being what he is?

For the record, I am not saying that thieves are loathsome, despicable creatures that everyone should hate and ostracize. I certainly think it important to exercise caution when judging other people - but I disagree with the idea that you can never judge a person because he did not choose to become that person. Am I not allowed to despise a remorseless mass-murdering rapist because he did not choose to become one? Regardless of the origin of his nature, his nature is foul.

 

[Light]

I don't remember calling anybody evil.

Oh no, I was just giving an example of where I draw the line.

Nevertheless, I'm not sure I agree with you, though that depends on what you mean by thinking "less of a person" of someone. I would never stop regarding a human as human, if that's what you mean, but I still have opinions on people. I look down on some and respect others.

As long as you always have somewhere in the back of your mind, "this could be you".

Out of curiosity, regarding "evil": what is your opinion on people who literally have no ability to care for, or empathize with, others (i.e. psychopaths)?

Well their psychological condition can lead to dangerous behavior which they can get in a lot of trouble for, and ultimately the whole deal lowers their quality of life. So I guess I feel a bit sorry for them. It was a valid question, but what is your opinion on the developmentally challenged?

For the record, I am not saying that thieves are loathsome, despicable creatures that everyone should hate and ostracize. I certainly think it important to exercise caution when judging other people - but I disagree with the idea that you can never judge a person because he did not choose to become that person. Am I not allowed to despise a remorseless mass-murdering rapist because he did not choose to become one? Regardless of the origin of his nature, his nature is foul.

Instead why don't you despise the behavior, rather than the person? It's fine to act as though you despise the person because the person is still likely to do the same things again, but I don't think it's right in your mind to attribute your feelings of despise to the person themself.

 

[Music Dragon]

As long as you always have somewhere in the back of your mind, "this could be you".

But if I were somebody else then I wouldn't be me, now would I? ... Eh, sorry. Enough with the ice cream koans.

It was a valid question, but what is your opinion on the developmentally challenged?

In what context? I don't really have any opinion on developmental disabilities beyond "too bad for those who have 'em". Could you be more specific?

Instead why don't you despise the behavior, rather than the person? It's fine to act as though you despise the person because the person is still likely to do the same things again, but I don't think it's right in your mind to attribute your feelings of despise to the person themself.

Where do you draw the line between a person and a person's behaviour, though? After all, to an outside observer, a person is his behaviour. Sure, we're all full of thoughts and emotions and other colourful things, but those are inaccessible to other people (we can express them, but that falls into the realm of "behaviour"). If you regard all of a person's actions as distinct from the person himself - if a person isn't what he says or what he does - then who is the person?

I realize that sometimes, good people do horrible things, and it's important to give those people a chance to redeem themselves. I know that all too well. However, if a person continually acts in a way that is thoroughly despicable, then I will despise him. That is not to say that I can't possibly change my mind if he shows himself deserving of it, but I don't see the difference between having an opinion on a person and having an opinion on his behaviour.

 

[Light]

In what context? I don't really have any opinion on developmental disabilities beyond "too bad for those who have 'em". Could you be more specific?

Where I was going with this is people with developmental disabilities can be obnoxious, childish, and oblivious, but you just can't apply the same judgmental filters to them as you do everyone else.

Where do you draw the line between a person and a person's behaviour, though? After all, to an outside observer, a person is his behaviour. Sure, we're all full of thoughts and emotions and other colourful things, but those are inaccessible to other people (we can express them, but that falls into the realm of "behaviour"). If you regard all of a person's actions as distinct from the person himself - if a person isn't what he says or what he does - then who is the person? . . . I don't see the difference between having an opinion on a person and having an opinion on his behaviour.

I guess this is just a piece of philosophy we think differently on. To me, the person is the colorful stuff. I can't see a helium atom, I only know it by how it behaves. I still think of a helium atom as 2 electrons and a nucleus with 2 protons, even though those components are inaccessible to me. I don't think of a helium atom as the part it plays in chemical reactions.

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

I guess this is just a piece of philosophy we think differently on. To me, the person is the colorful stuff. I can't see a helium atom, I only know it by how it behaves. I still think of a helium atom as 2 electrons and a nucleus with 2 protons, even though those components are inaccessible to me. I don't think of a helium atom as the part it plays in chemical reactions.

Yeah, but the only reason you can't see the colourful bits is because you don't have a powerful enough microscope. There are no circumstances in which you can know the thoughts of another person. Also, helium was a terrible example anyway; noble gases don't react (except for in extreme circumstances, I know, but in general, no).

 

[Music Dragon]

Where I was going with this is people with developmental disabilities can be obnoxious, childish, and oblivious, but you just can't apply the same judgmental filters to them as you do everyone else.

Agreed.

I guess this is just a piece of philosophy we think differently on. To me, the person is the colorful stuff. I can't see a helium atom, I only know it by how it behaves. I still think of a helium atom as 2 electrons and a nucleus with 2 protons, even though those components are inaccessible to me. I don't think of a helium atom as the part it plays in chemical reactions.

But the components aren't inaccessible - that's why we know they're there in the first place.

More importantly, it's a matter of whether or not a particular definition is useful or not. Defining a helium atom as being "an atom with two protons" is useful because it allows you to know something about the helium atom, allows you predict its behaviour in given situations and so on. But if you define a person to be only his thoughts and emotions, and not his behaviour, the whole concept of a "person" becomes rather pointless, since you can never say anything about the person besides "he presumably exists".

I'm sure you like some people more than others. You love some people, and some you don't. Some people are your friends and others aren't. Is any of this justified? Think of a person you love, or at least really like, then disregard everything they've ever said or done. What does that leave you with?

So I repeat: what is a person, if not his behaviour? If you disregard all of a person's actions, and instead look only at his thoughts and feelings, then that leaves you with absolutely nothing, because you don't know anything about his thoughts and feelings. All you know about his inner life is what he expresses through his actions.

 

[Light]

Yeah, but the only reason you can't see the colourful bits is because you don't have a powerful enough microscope. There are no circumstances in which you can know the thoughts of another person.

I can read your mind.

Are you suggesting you don't normally assume the colorful bits exist?

Also, helium was a terrible example anyway; noble gases don't react (except for in extreme circumstances, I know, but in general, no).

Does it even matter? Helium still has its own set of behaviors in mass amounts. It's a perfect example. We came to know about it's (pardon my typo) subatomic structure by observing how it and other elements behave, then noticing patterns in that behavior and explaining those patterns with three subatomic particles. We did not observe the proton, we postulated it and then tested it's behavior against the implications of postulated behavior. And if you don't like the example substitute in your chemical of choice.

You people can be so antagonistic sometimes.

But the components aren't inaccessible - that's why we know they're there in the first place.

No one's ever seen a proton. We only know they exist by their behavior. We assume they exist, but there could be a different model with no observable differences than the current model that is actually correct.

More importantly, it's a matter of whether or not a particular definition is useful or not. Defining a helium atom as being "an atom with two protons" is useful because it allows you to know something about the helium atom, allows you predict its behaviour in given situations and so on. But if you define a person to be only his thoughts and emotions, and not his behaviour, the whole concept of a "person" becomes rather pointless, since you can never say anything about the person besides "he presumably exists".

If your definition of a person includes their behavior, then yes, you can judge them that way. But then I still don't see eir behavior as something intrinsically tied to who e is unless e's trying to express emself. (bleh I insist on improving the english language)

I'm sure you like some people more than others. You love some people, and some you don't. Some people are your friends and others aren't. Is any of this justified? Think of a person you love, or at least really like, then disregard everything they've ever said or done. What does that leave you with?

No, it's not really justified. It's irrational. And I'm okay with being irrational about loving/ liking people, often times with disliking people, but not with hating people.

So I repeat: what is a person, if not his behaviour? If you disregard all of a person's actions, and instead look only at his thoughts and feelings, then that leaves you with absolutely nothing, because you don't know anything about his thoughts and feelings. All you know about his inner life is what he expresses through his actions.

It's a difference in philosophy, but I still thing my chemical analogy holds valid. You would never know a particle if it didn't have any affect on the world; thinking in concrete terms you only know it by it's behavior.

 

[Music Dragon]

Does it even matter? Helium still has its own set of behaviors in mass amounts. It's a perfect example. We came to know about it's (pardon my typo) subatomic structure by observing how it and other elements behave, then noticing patterns in that behavior and explaining those patterns with three subatomic particles. We did not observe the proton, we postulated it and then tested it's behavior against the implications of postulated behavior. And if you don't like the example substitute in your chemical of choice.

But the proton itself is completely uninteresting. All we care about is the way it interacts with the world, and whether or not our model of the universe is accurate. In the same way, the "person" is uninteresting; what matters is the way this person interacts with the world, the way he behaves, what he says and does. Contemplating the nature of a proton beyond its interaction with the universe is meaningless, and the same goes for the person, or so I hold.

You people can be so antagonistic sometimes.

Where's the antagonism? Geez. Sorry for disagreeing with you.

No one's ever seen a proton. We only know they exist by their behavior. We assume they exist, but there could be a different model with no observable differences than the current model that is actually correct.

Agreed. Therefore, the proton in itself is completely uninteresting; only its behaviour is relevant. In fact, its behaviour is how we define the proton. I don't think it's possible to describe a proton if you disregard everything relating to its interaction with the universe.

If your definition of a person includes their behavior, then yes, you can judge them that way. But then I still don't see eir behavior as something intrinsically tied to who e is unless e's trying to express emself. (bleh I insist on improving the english language)

Very well; that's simply a matter of definition. However, I feel that if you define "person" to be something distinct from "person's behaviour", then the concept of "person" is meaningless; there is no point in having such a definition. What would you use it for? In what context could you meaningfully talk about a person but not that person's interaction with the world?

No, it's not really justified. It's irrational. And I'm okay with being irrational about loving/ liking people, often times with disliking people, but not with hating people.

How come?

It's a difference in philosophy, but I still thing my chemical analogy holds valid. You would never know a particle if it didn't have any affect on the world; thinking in concrete terms you only know it by it's behavior.

Yes. And in the same way, you only know a person by his behaviour. Therefore, defining "person" as being something beyond "person's behaviour" is meaningless, just as defining "proton" as something beyond "proton's behaviour" is meaningless.

 

[Light]

But the proton itself is completely uninteresting. All we care about is the way it interacts with the world, and whether or not our model of the universe is accurate. In the same way, the "person" is uninteresting; what matters is the way this person interacts with the world, the way he behaves, what he says and does. Contemplating the nature of a proton beyond its interaction with the universe is meaningless, and the same goes for the person, or so I hold.

Well, there I have to disagree with you. I care about what a proton is. I care about the intricacies of what make it up. What is matter? What does it mean for something to exist? Is matter just a set of reactions? (there's an interesting philosophy). Does the proton have a life of its own, or is it just a pattern of actions in space that make up what I see?

Where's the antagonism? Geez. Sorry for disagreeing with you.

No, you are one of the nicest people I have debated with. I was talking about TES for saying my example was terrible and giving a short crappy reason to back up his claim.

Agreed. Therefore, the proton in itself is completely uninteresting; only its behaviour is relevant. In fact, its behaviour is how we define the proton. I don't think it's possible to describe a proton if you disregard everything relating to its interaction with the universe.

That's true, but I disagree that the proton itself is completely uninteresting.

Very well; that's simply a matter of definition. However, I feel that if you define "person" to be something distinct from "person's behaviour", then the concept of "person" is meaningless; there is no point in having such a definition. What would you use it for? In what context could you meaningfully talk about a person but not that person's interaction with the world?

In the context of qualia and consciousness.

How come?

Because they're people too, and I might as well have ended up in their situation, and I don't ever want people to hate me (although I could understand if people did if I did something really bad).

Yes. And in the same way, you only know a person by his behaviour. Therefore, defining "person" as being something beyond "person's behaviour" is meaningless, just as defining "proton" as something beyond "proton's behaviour" is meaningless.

Is philisophical zombie meaningless to you?

 

[Saith]

Why would someone ever choose what they know to be wrong purely for the sake of being wrong? You can kick a puppy because you're in a bad mood and catharsis seems really appealing at the moment, sure, or you can do it just to prove you have "free will". But you will never do it just to be evil.

That's not even close to what I said. I said that humanity has the capacity for evil. We have both the ability and the responsibility to know right from wrong.

Like... Okay, here goes:

Say we have a dragon, yeah. This dragon flies down - and it's fucking hench lizard, right, it's not Puff - and it swallows you and your family/friends/dog/squirrel whole and flies off and your dead and oh well.
But that's just what dragons do, right? It's instinct. It's natural. It might be cruel from a universal point of view, but in the end, the dragon is not evil.

Now let's say this dragon flew down out of no where like a badman, knocked out you and your bros with a bottle of chloroform - we're assuming the dragon has thumbs, aight - he knocks you out, kidnaps you, ties y'all up, spends a week torturing you and then flays you alive. That's evil. It's evil because it's a very specific, purposeful cruelty, from which no good can come. We're assuming you and your bros aren't worthy of reptilian vigilante justice.

The point of that story is that in the end, right, man has the ability to choose right, and also choose wrong. Man might not think he's choosing wrong bruv - and he may be the one in the right - but man has the choice, you get me?


But hell, besides all that, I find it very uncomfortable to ever say that man has no choice, you get me?
It's very easy to go from 'he killed him because of x' to 'he was bound to kill him because of x'. The difference might be tiny, but in the end, that's wehre all prejudice comes from. All of it. It comes from viewing another's different situation, and blaming that individual's actions on her circumstances. It comes from assuming that everybody in those circumstances would do the same thing.
It's a short trip from going 'he stole it because he's from a poor, black neighbourhood, and wanted to get his daughter a Christmas present' to 'NIGGERS ARE THIEVES!'.

 

[Light]

The point of that story is that in the end, right, man has the ability to choose right, and also choose wrong. Man might not think he's choosing wrong bruv - and he may be the one in the right - but man has the choice, you get me?

I'm tracking with you on the capable of evil part. It's the choice thing I'm not following. How exactly does one choose one thing over another?

But hell, besides all that, I find it very uncomfortable to ever say that man has no choice, you get me?
It's very easy to go from 'he killed him because of x' to 'he was bound to kill him because of x'.

Um, no, I'm not getting you. The contrapositive of "he killed him because of x" is "if not x he would not have killed him". (We're assuming x includes the entirety of his reasons for killing).

Lack of genuine "choice" has never made me uncomfortable, but maybe that's because I have thought that way ever since I was little.

The difference might be tiny, but in the end, that's wehre all prejudice comes from. All of it. It comes from viewing another's different situation, and blaming that individual's actions on her circumstances. It comes from assuming that everybody in those circumstances would do the same thing.

Well I would hope it would be the opposite, that the realization that you would have done the same thing will lead you to not be prejudiced against that person. I really don't understand how that revelation leads to prejudice.

It's a short trip from going 'he stole it because he's from a poor, black neighbourhood, and wanted to get his daughter a Christmas present' to 'NIGGERS ARE THIEVES!'.

I'm not seeing the logic in this at all. Maybe you could explain? The first is an aversion to the Fundamental Attribution Error and the second is a blatant stereotype.

 

[Saith]

I'm tracking with you on the capable of evil part. It's the choice thing I'm not following. How exactly does one choose one thing over another?

Eeny meeny, bruv.
Look, evil cannot exist without choice. That is a fact. Without choice, then the act isn't evil. It cannot be evil. Even the foulest serial rapist isn't evil if he did not choose his own action. After all, how can one be responsible for one's actions if those actions aren't actually one's own. If 'destiny' or 'fate' or 'God' or fucking 'Newton' dictate my actions, then those actions aren't mine. They're the actions of 'fate' or whatever. If in God's plan, I am to one day genocide the Martians, then the one responsible for the Martian holocaust is God. I really can't explain that any better. It's basically the very foundation of all ethics.

Um, no, I'm not getting you. The contrapositive of "he killed him because of x" is "if not x he would not have killed him". (We're assuming x includes the entirety of his reasons for killing).

I ain't talking about changing the meanings or whatever, simply restating the original. It means the exact same thing. If you're saying that someone did something because of x, if you are saying there was no choice involved, then you are saying that it couldn't have happened any differently at all. If you are saying an event could have turned out differently within the exact same circumstances, then you are allowing for a free agent. Choice.

Well I would hope it would be the opposite, that the realization that you would have done the same thing will lead you to not be prejudiced against that person. I really don't understand how that revelation leads to prejudice.

...What? No, you are saying that people within the same circumstances would behave the same way. That there's no choice involved. That is prejudice. That is literally prejudging.

I'm not seeing the logic in this at all. Maybe you could explain? The first is an aversion to the Fundamental Attribution Error and the second is a blatant stereotype.

Okay, I don't see how that link has anything to do with it.

Look, if you don't believe in choice, then you don't believe that a situation could have turned out differently within the same parameters.
One of these parameters could be race or religion or class.
That parameter would likely be the most obvious.
So if you get mugged by a working class lad, the most obvious parameter would be his lack of money.
That might then take the brunt of the blame.
If you don't believe in choice, then you don't believe that two people within the same situation can act differently.
Therefore you're saying that someone's sex or class or race or whatever has a very definite effect on their actions.
It's easy to turn 'he fucking mugged me' to 'that pikey son of a bitch fucking mugged me, fucking gippo'.
If you believe in choice, then you believe that other members of whatever can act differently within the same situation.

I've explained this same thing so many times now, so please please please don't ask me the same damn question.

 

[Light]

Eeny meeny, bruv.
Look, evil cannot exist without choice. That is a fact. Without choice, then the act isn't evil. It cannot be evil. Even the foulest serial rapist isn't evil if he did not choose his own action. After all, how can one be responsible for one's actions if those actions aren't actually one's own. If 'destiny' or 'fate' or 'God' or fucking 'Newton' dictate my actions, then those actions aren't mine. They're the actions of 'fate' or whatever. If in God's plan, I am to one day genocide the Martians, then the one responsible for the Martian holocaust is God. I really can't explain that any better. It's basically the very foundation of all ethics.

Okay then. I assumed for a moment evil was a matter of consequence of one's actions. The way you are explaining it is exactly why I don't believe in evil.

I ain't talking about changing the meanings or whatever, simply restating the original. It means the exact same thing. If you're saying that someone did something because of x, if you are saying there was no choice involved, then you are saying that it couldn't have happened any differently at all. If you are saying an event could have turned out differently within the exact same circumstances, then you are allowing for a free agent. Choice.

Which I don't, because choice is completely illogical. There cannot be an uncaused cause. So I repeat my earlier question: How does one choose?

...What? No, you are saying that people within the same circumstances would behave the same way. That there's no choice involved. That is prejudice. That is literally prejudging.

You can't prejudge, because the situations are extremely complex.

Okay, I don't see how that link has anything to do with it.

Attributing something to someone's nature (their choice) rather than their situation is the fundamental attribution error.

Look, if you don't believe in choice, then you don't believe that a situation could have turned out differently within the same parameters.
One of these parameters could be race or religion or class.
That parameter would likely be the most obvious.
So if you get mugged by a working class lad, the most obvious parameter would be his lack of money.
That might then take the brunt of the blame.
If you don't believe in choice, then you don't believe that two people within the same situation can act differently.
Therefore you're saying that someone's sex or class or race or whatever has a very definite effect on their actions. ****Here. post hoc ergo propter hoc. I really don't feel like explaining it.
It's easy to turn 'he fucking mugged me' to 'that pikey son of a bitch fucking mugged me, fucking gippo'.
If you believe in choice, then you believe that other members of whatever can act differently within the same situation.

I've explained this same thing so many times now, so please please please don't ask me the same damn question.

*its not really that visible in sneasel style

Thanks for explaining your logic, because that was very much not obvious.

I guess someone could think that way, but so many people hold on to choice you can hardly say that one line of thought is responsible for all prejudice. In fact, on further reflection of that logic, stereotyping is what causes divisions in society that lead to worse conditions for those who are discriminated against. Gays get outcast, have a higher suicide rate. And then people try to use that as evidence homosexuality is evil! (demonstrating how it is the idea of evil that leads to stereotyping). The very fact that gays have a higher suicide rate should make us more sympathetic toward them!

 

[Music Dragon]

Well, there I have to disagree with you. I care about what a proton is. I care about the intricacies of what make it up. What is matter? What does it mean for something to exist? Is matter just a set of reactions? (there's an interesting philosophy). Does the proton have a life of its own, or is it just a pattern of actions in space that make up what I see?

Very well, I concede that it might be of interest to some people to discuss the proton beyond its interaction with the universe. However, I don't think you could actually learn anything about the proton by doing so; it would be pure speculation.

No, you are one of the nicest people I have debated with. I was talking about TES for saying my example was terrible and giving a short crappy reason to back up his claim.

Right. The way you said "you people" made it sound like you were talking about more than one person.

That's true, but I disagree that the proton itself is completely uninteresting.

See above.

In the context of qualia and consciousness.

While you could discuss the nature of consciousness, I don't think you could meaningfully talk about an actual person in this manner. For certain values of "meaningful", perhaps, but you couldn't actually learn anything about the person in question this way.

In any case, I feel that despising a person's behaviour instead of the person makes no difference whatsoever. Then I would also have to say that "I'm not friends with that guy, I'm friends with his behaviour" and "you don't love your mother, you love your mother's actions". There simply is no good reason to distinguish between "person" and "everything a person says and does", because it leads to a more or less useless definition of "person". If I know a guy whose actions are generous, then I will think of him as generous, not as completely unknowable.

Because they're people too, and I might as well have ended up in their situation, and I don't ever want people to hate me (although I could understand if people did if I did something really bad).

How do you know you might as well have ended up in their situation? You're a different person.

Is philisophical zombie meaningless to you?

Pretty much, because I don't think they could exist.

That's not even close to what I said. I said that humanity has the capacity for evil. We have both the ability and the responsibility to know right from wrong.

Like... Okay, here goes:

Say we have a dragon, yeah. This dragon flies down - and it's fucking hench lizard, right, it's not Puff - and it swallows you and your family/friends/dog/squirrel whole and flies off and your dead and oh well.
But that's just what dragons do, right? It's instinct. It's natural. It might be cruel from a universal point of view, but in the end, the dragon is not evil.

Now let's say this dragon flew down out of no where like a badman, knocked out you and your bros with a bottle of chloroform - we're assuming the dragon has thumbs, aight - he knocks you out, kidnaps you, ties y'all up, spends a week torturing you and then flays you alive. That's evil. It's evil because it's a very specific, purposeful cruelty, from which no good can come. We're assuming you and your bros aren't worthy of reptilian vigilante justice.

The point of that story is that in the end, right, man has the ability to choose right, and also choose wrong. Man might not think he's choosing wrong bruv - and he may be the one in the right - but man has the choice, you get me?

Actually, no, I don't really get it. It's a nice little story, but it has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not choice is possible. It seems to have more to do with the nature of evil (your idea of it, at least).

But hell, besides all that, I find it very uncomfortable to ever say that man has no choice, you get me?

A common argument, but an invalid one.

It's very easy to go from 'he killed him because of x' to 'he was bound to kill him because of x'. The difference might be tiny, but in the end, that's wehre all prejudice comes from. All of it. It comes from viewing another's different situation, and blaming that individual's actions on her circumstances. It comes from assuming that everybody in those circumstances would do the same thing.
It's a short trip from going 'he stole it because he's from a poor, black neighbourhood, and wanted to get his daughter a Christmas present' to 'NIGGERS ARE THIEVES!'.

This could only happen as a result of a gross misunderstanding of the deterministic point of view. Determinism does not hold that "anyone in the same situation would do the same thing"; it holds that "the same person in the same situation would do the same thing". If a black person steals from you and you then draw the conclusion that black people are thieves, then you've made the mistake of assuming that all black people are identical, which is not a part of determinism.

Eeny meeny, bruv.
Look, evil cannot exist without choice. That is a fact. Without choice, then the act isn't evil. It cannot be evil.

No, that is not a fact. "Evil" isn't even a defined concept.

Even the foulest serial rapist isn't evil if he did not choose his own action. After all, how can one be responsible for one's actions if those actions aren't actually one's own. If 'destiny' or 'fate' or 'God' or fucking 'Newton' dictate my actions, then those actions aren't mine. They're the actions of 'fate' or whatever. If in God's plan, I am to one day genocide the Martians, then the one responsible for the Martian holocaust is God. I really can't explain that any better. It's basically the very foundation of all ethics.

You seem to have a very narrow-minded view of ethics. To start with, there's plenty of people who are of the opinion that good and evil don't actually exist. As for me personally, I do believe in good and evil, but I don't think they have anything to do with "true" choice, since that doesn't exist. You're making a lot of assumptions about what evil must necessarily be.

I ain't talking about changing the meanings or whatever, simply restating the original. It means the exact same thing. If you're saying that someone did something because of x, if you are saying there was no choice involved, then you are saying that it couldn't have happened any differently at all. If you are saying an event could have turned out differently within the exact same circumstances, then you are allowing for a free agent. Choice.

Well, I'm saying that it couldn't have happened differently at all.

...What? No, you are saying that people within the same circumstances would behave the same way. That there's no choice involved. That is prejudice. That is literally prejudging.

Obviously, people within the same circumstances would behave the same way, because if the circumstances are the same, then the person is also the same. That is not prejudice.

Look, if you don't believe in choice, then you don't believe that a situation could have turned out differently within the same parameters.
One of these parameters could be race or religion or class.
That parameter would likely be the most obvious.
So if you get mugged by a working class lad, the most obvious parameter would be his lack of money.
That might then take the brunt of the blame.

Yes, it might, if, for some reason, you choose to ignore everything else in favour of the "most obvious parameter". People who fail to understand determinism might draw really dumb conclusions from it, but that in itself doesn't disprove determinism.

If you don't believe in choice, then you don't believe that two people within the same situation can act differently.
Therefore you're saying that someone's sex or class or race or whatever has a very definite effect on their actions.
It's easy to turn 'he fucking mugged me' to 'that pikey son of a bitch fucking mugged me, fucking gippo'.
If you believe in choice, then you believe that other members of whatever can act differently within the same situation.

You don't understand determinism. Two people can't be in the same situation because they're different people. Their personalities, experiences, memories etc. are not identical, and therefore, the circumstances are not the same.

Your entire reasoning seems to be a huge appeal to consequences. You're basically saying "it would be awful if choice didn't exist, therefore it exists". I'm not buying that. If you could point out some kind of flaw in the logic presented earlier in this thread, I'd be more inclined to listen.