4 ms·

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

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?

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?