4 ms·

There’s something very odd to me about the modern progressive position that, more or less, if you can explain a crime, then you can in some sense excuse it. Th

There’s something very odd to me about the modern progressive position that, more or less, if you can explain a crime, then you can in some sense excuse it. That description of his childhood works for me in sociological terms — let’s avoid stuff that we know to create monsters — but not on individual ones (i.e. the monster, having been created, is indeed a monster).

fphhotchips 4y ago
The question is, do you blame the monster for being a monster? Or do you blame the people that made them one? There are valid points both ways. IMO I think the idea is that if you can explain the crime then maybe the monster was created by society and thus can be redeemed by society. If you can't explain the crime, maybe the monster is just a monster.
- dionidium 4y ago
  As a materialist and a determinist I accept implicitly that everything has a cause and nobody is really responsible for anything, in some sense. But I find it’s pretty hard to actually live as though that’s true. Taken to its logical conclusions: I’m not even responsible for my belief that he’s responsible, and so on.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    My response to this materialist argument is that it essentially goes full circle. Once everyone has no responsibility, you are just left with what are they and what did they do. Did they act like monster, independent of the upstream causality? I try to apply the same logic to myself when I get into a deterministic ego trip. The question of if I can choose to go the gym today is irrelevant. The relevant question is do I think I am a dedicated person who will go to the gym today. If I am are kind, loving, and charitable to myself, I find that the answer is "Yes, S1artibartfast is the kind of hard working person who would go to the gym".
    - dionidium 4y ago
      It’s funny you say this, because it’s something I’ve been thinking about a lot recently. If you take the materialist position to its logical conclusion, then, in my view, instead of being exculpatory, you arrive back at an essentialist position.
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        Exactly my conclusion as well. The interesting and challenging aspect of the essentialist position is understanding and believing in change. Past performance is not guarantee of future performance, even for the material determinist, as the world is not static. Maybe you have never been to the gym, but today could be the first day. Ultimately, it doesn't matter what induced the change, but if you will fight it. In this way, I think that determinism is best paired with a optimistic and charitable perspective. Most people have good intentions. I think that usually the biggest difference between those who act them out and those who don't is their essential optimism or pessimism. To that end, I try to encourage more optimism.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  >IMO I think the idea is that if you can explain the crime then maybe the monster was created by society and thus can be redeemed by society. I think that might be the thought process, but I do not think it is very accurate. Some damage simply cant be undone, especially early childhood trauma and developmental damage. Similarly, blame isn't binary, both can be true. If we have dispensed with the concept of free will, then nothing is to blame, neither society or the individual. It simply is. Once you reach that point you have to ask, what is it, independent of the assignment of blame. Are they a monster? Did they brutally murder 3 people?
nobody9999 4y ago
>There’s something very odd to me about the modern progressive position that, more or less, if you can explain a crime, then you can in some sense excuse it. I'm not following here. Who, specifically, is claiming that those who commit crimes shouldn't be held accountable (prosecuted, incarcerated, etc.) for those crimes because they had a rough childhood/suffered abuse/etc? Please do name names. As a mild example, just as being drunk is a reason for being obnoxious/nasty, it's not an excuse. As a person who is somewhat to the left of what other Americans call "progressives," (who are center/leaning center-left), I don't think that understanding something makes everything okay or that crimes should be ignored because of negative stuff in the perpetrator's past. In fact, I've never heard anyone make such a claim. Many folks (at least in the US, and I'm sure elsewhere too) have been abused by society and the legal system. And we should make every effort to combat that. However, there absolutely are folks who should be removed from society, as they've shown they cannot live in a society without harming it and/or those within it. And those people should be kept apart from society -- for the protection of society. >That description of his childhood works for me in sociological terms — let’s avoid stuff that we know to create monsters — but not on individual ones (i.e. the monster, having been created, is indeed a monster). Seems like a good idea. But no one (AFAIK) is trying to "excuse" criminal behavior even as we try to understand the causes.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  >Seems like a good idea. But no one (AFAIK) is trying to "excuse" criminal behavior even as we try to understand the causes. I think the knee jerk response would be about perspectives on poverty and class, but I think the more interesting response is that the criminal justice system already takes causes into account. Provoked Crimes of Passion are treated differently than premeditated ones. Questions of mental capacity are relevant to sentencing. We have things like the twinkie defense and temporary insanity. We have Justified homicide due to self-defense. In reality, the justice system almost always takes causes into account. Just not all causes. The interesting question is why some but not others.
  - nobody9999 4y ago
    >In reality, the justice system almost always takes causes into account. Just not all causes. The interesting question is why some but not others. Absolutely. Circumstances are usually relevant and should be examined. But GP[0] claimed that "progressives" argue that understanding the causes for the commission of crimes should "excuse" those actions. Which is an unsupported assertion and I reject it because, at least AFAIK, no one takes that position. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34317453 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34317453 Edit: Added the missing link, cleaned up prose.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
itsmemattchung 4y ago
> That description of his childhood works for me in sociological terms — let’s avoid stuff that we know to create monsters — but not on individual ones (i.e. the monster, having been created, is indeed a monster). Can you elaborate on this

fphhotchips 4y ago

The question is, do you blame the monster for being a monster? Or do you blame the people that made them one? There are valid points both ways. IMO I think the idea is that if you can explain the crime then maybe the monster was created by society and thus can be redeemed by society. If you can't explain the crime, maybe the monster is just a monster.

dionidium 4y ago
As a materialist and a determinist I accept implicitly that everything has a cause and nobody is really responsible for anything, in some sense. But I find it’s pretty hard to actually live as though that’s true. Taken to its logical conclusions: I’m not even responsible for my belief that he’s responsible, and so on.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  My response to this materialist argument is that it essentially goes full circle. Once everyone has no responsibility, you are just left with what are they and what did they do. Did they act like monster, independent of the upstream causality? I try to apply the same logic to myself when I get into a deterministic ego trip. The question of if I can choose to go the gym today is irrelevant. The relevant question is do I think I am a dedicated person who will go to the gym today. If I am are kind, loving, and charitable to myself, I find that the answer is "Yes, S1artibartfast is the kind of hard working person who would go to the gym".
  - dionidium 4y ago
    It’s funny you say this, because it’s something I’ve been thinking about a lot recently. If you take the materialist position to its logical conclusion, then, in my view, instead of being exculpatory, you arrive back at an essentialist position.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      Exactly my conclusion as well. The interesting and challenging aspect of the essentialist position is understanding and believing in change. Past performance is not guarantee of future performance, even for the material determinist, as the world is not static. Maybe you have never been to the gym, but today could be the first day. Ultimately, it doesn't matter what induced the change, but if you will fight it. In this way, I think that determinism is best paired with a optimistic and charitable perspective. Most people have good intentions. I think that usually the biggest difference between those who act them out and those who don't is their essential optimism or pessimism. To that end, I try to encourage more optimism.
s1artibartfast 4y ago
>IMO I think the idea is that if you can explain the crime then maybe the monster was created by society and thus can be redeemed by society. I think that might be the thought process, but I do not think it is very accurate. Some damage simply cant be undone, especially early childhood trauma and developmental damage. Similarly, blame isn't binary, both can be true. If we have dispensed with the concept of free will, then nothing is to blame, neither society or the individual. It simply is. Once you reach that point you have to ask, what is it, independent of the assignment of blame. Are they a monster? Did they brutally murder 3 people?

nobody9999 4y ago

>There’s something very odd to me about the modern progressive position that, more or less, if you can explain a crime, then you can in some sense excuse it. I'm not following here. Who, specifically, is claiming that those who commit crimes shouldn't be held accountable (prosecuted, incarcerated, etc.) for those crimes because they had a rough childhood/suffered abuse/etc? Please do name names. As a mild example, just as being drunk is a reason for being obnoxious/nasty, it's not an excuse. As a person who is somewhat to the left of what other Americans call "progressives," (who are center/leaning center-left), I don't think that understanding something makes everything okay or that crimes should be ignored because of negative stuff in the perpetrator's past. In fact, I've never heard anyone make such a claim. Many folks (at least in the US, and I'm sure elsewhere too) have been abused by society and the legal system. And we should make every effort to combat that. However, there absolutely are folks who should be removed from society, as they've shown they cannot live in a society without harming it and/or those within it. And those people should be kept apart from society -- for the protection of society. >That description of his childhood works for me in sociological terms — let’s avoid stuff that we know to create monsters — but not on individual ones (i.e. the monster, having been created, is indeed a monster). Seems like a good idea. But no one (AFAIK) is trying to "excuse" criminal behavior even as we try to understand the causes.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
>Seems like a good idea. But no one (AFAIK) is trying to "excuse" criminal behavior even as we try to understand the causes. I think the knee jerk response would be about perspectives on poverty and class, but I think the more interesting response is that the criminal justice system already takes causes into account. Provoked Crimes of Passion are treated differently than premeditated ones. Questions of mental capacity are relevant to sentencing. We have things like the twinkie defense and temporary insanity. We have Justified homicide due to self-defense. In reality, the justice system almost always takes causes into account. Just not all causes. The interesting question is why some but not others.
- nobody9999 4y ago
  >In reality, the justice system almost always takes causes into account. Just not all causes. The interesting question is why some but not others. Absolutely. Circumstances are usually relevant and should be examined. But GP[0] claimed that "progressives" argue that understanding the causes for the commission of crimes should "excuse" those actions. Which is an unsupported assertion and I reject it because, at least AFAIK, no one takes that position. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34317453 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34317453 Edit: Added the missing link, cleaned up prose.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

itsmemattchung 4y ago

> That description of his childhood works for me in sociological terms — let’s avoid stuff that we know to create monsters — but not on individual ones (i.e. the monster, having been created, is indeed a monster). Can you elaborate on this