4 ms·

"Much of the book is devoted to establishing that our behavior is determined in this sense, and thus not free. Sapolsky holds that this implies we cannot legiti

"Much of the book is devoted to establishing that our behavior is determined in this sense, and thus not free. Sapolsky holds that this implies we cannot legitimately be held morally responsible for it." Is it crazy to not believe that he actually believes this? It feels like a kind of purely academic position that you can only take and come to because you live in a world and a society that already holds people morally responsible for their actions. And through that has created an environment where a quirky academic can pose such a nonsensical thought as "neuroscience" with no real consequences because he is not involved in keeping the ship right.

hackinthebochs 3y ago
What's nonsensical about it? Determining that we can't rationally hold people responsible doesn't mean that society is powerless to defend itself against bad actors. What it does is undermines the justification for moral indignation and our retributive tendencies. If someone contracted a contagious illness, we would quarantine them despite the fact that they're not responsible for their illness. There's no contradiction in defensive behavior and recognizing a lack of moral responsibility.
- sickofparadox 3y ago
  I am reminded of the phrase "The easiest way to prove a nihilist as a hypocrite is to point a shotgun at his head." You have reconstructed moral responsibility in no responsibility land, possibly only removing the judgement of character that comes with "defensive behavior".
  - graphe 3y ago
    Moral responsibility isn't the same as responsibility. Leprosy isn't a moral failing, although people still will discriminate against lepers.
    - RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
      Is discrimination against lepers a moral failing?
  - hackinthebochs 3y ago
    But the judgment of character is central to how our society conceptualizes its response to bad actors, and it informs the space of justifiable responses towards bad actors, that it matters whether the judgment of character is based on fact. Moral responsibility as we currently conceive of it has been responsible for untold atrocities throughout human history. The problem is the concept has blanket justificatory power. People who are deemed to be moral degenerates by society become authorized targets of heinous behavior with a clear conscience of the perpetrators. Undermining the concept of moral responsibility breaks the connection between a bad actor and cruelty towards them. Taking a quarantine model limits the space of allowable behaviors; heinous reactions no longer have justification. So while the result can be similar in broad strokes between the two systems, the details can end up being very different.
    - sickofparadox 3y ago
      Simply because something has been responsible for bad things does not make it worthy of doing away with motivated reasoning. Also, sometimes bad actors deserve cruelty.
      - hackinthebochs 3y ago
        >Also, sometimes bad actors deserve cruelty. So you do recognize a substantive difference between a justice system based on the concept of moral responsibility and one without. But those of us that are against cruelty are motivated to look more closely at the justifications for it. Hence we get arguments like the one I presented.
        sickofparadox 3y ago
        A justice system without the concept of moral responsibility is one that has abolished itself. It is impossible for it to exist because justice is a concept that inherently requires morality to function. What you suggest is, again, a reconstruction of a justice system pretending it does not make moral judgement. "You were not in control of your actions, yet we have decided to lock you in a cell - for the greater good, of course".
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  I dont think it avoids the moral judgement, it just obfuscates it, or replaces it with a comparable concept. You dont need free will to rationally have disgust, indignation, and retribution. You can rationally punish someone who contracted a contagious illness. All you need for rationale is switching from the idea that someone makes bad choices to the idea that someone is a bad machine.
  - hackinthebochs 3y ago
    Would you "punish" your computer for crashing? Seems absurd. Presumably we don't want to engage in absurdities and irrational behavior. We want to do what is "right", for various conceptions of right. So getting clear on whether we have moral responsibility is important to getting things right.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      Why do we punish anything? I might punish my computer by replacing it because it crashes. I might punish it with a hammer after because it is cathartic. None of that relies on the computer having choice in the matter. Free will is independent of moral responsibility. you can hold someone guilty of "being bad" just as easily as making "bad choices"
      - hackinthebochs 3y ago
        >None of that relies on the computer having choice in the matter. Most normally functioning people would not feel the need to punish a tool for being a bad tool. Some may find catharsis in damaging some object that has frustrated them, but usually they later recognize the absurdity of their outburst. The point is that we all generally recognize that there are legitimate and illegitimate targets for "punishment". The question is whether people are actually legitimate targets for punishment despite our intuitions on the matter. >you can hold someone guilty of "being bad" just as easily as making "bad choices" Sure you can; nothing is going to stop you from smashing your PC to bits next time it crashes. The issue is whether it is the all things considered correct choice.
Edman274 3y ago
He may believe that people can't be held "morally" responsible for it but that doesn't necessarily mean that he thinks that we can't punish people or censure them. Like, you might not think that a 4 year old is morally responsible or "evil" for breaking his little sister's toys, but you still send them to time out anyway.
- sickofparadox 3y ago
  I find this to be a simple reconstruction of moral responsibility without the language associated with character judgement - essentially just word games.
  - kaibee 3y ago
    The problem is that word games have real consequences. Word games can dehumanize groups and make it easier to justify atrocities. If free will exists, then retributive torture is easy to morally justify.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      I think atrocities and retributive torture are easier to justify without free will. lack of free will confirms that someone didn't just make a bad choice, but they are an inherently bad human that performs bad actions.
visarga 3y ago
We can punish people for a plurality of reasons: - for moral enforcement (requires free will doctrine) - for retribution (tit for tat) - to balance society out Even if free will doesn't exist, we can still punish people who cause harm to society, in the interest of the group. It's just society balancing itself out.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
  If free will doesn't exist, we can't *not* punish people. By definition. Those arguing against it also can't not argue. But they will lose the argue (it is inevitable), and then society will continue to punish, because it can't not do so. Determinism, whatever the logic of its premise, it intellectually bankrupt.
  - kaibee 3y ago
    > If free will doesn't exist, we can't not punish people. By definition. What? You can still change your mind/update beliefs after being presented with new evidence, in fact if you're being rational, you actually have no choice but to do so. I suppose in some sense, the most 'free will' action is to choose to ignore evidence that would change your beliefs.
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
      > in fact if you're being rational, Rationality implies free will. I am a clockwork robot, and even if the cogs and gearsprings mechanically approximate rationality, it is really only the affectation of such. For irrationality would also just be obeying the same mechanical pathways encoded in my brain, thus neither is superior, or preferable. I can't even really have preferences, in a meaningful sense. Also, the encoding of my personality is quite strong, and easily able to ignore the absurd snickerings of your arguments, so you won't win and change my mind, or enough minds of others to make it the dominant paradigm. Punishment for wickedness remains. You lose.
  - lern_too_spel 3y ago
    I had no choice but to conclude based on evidence that the threat of punishment causes a change in the behavior of others, and since I had no choice in deriving a goal of self preservation, I have no choice but to support laws that punish others for risking that. Believing these things is no more intellectually bankrupt than believing that the Moon has no choice but to revolve around the Earth.
NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
> Is it crazy to not believe that he actually believes this? It's merely misguided. There is no belief so atrociously stupid that someone, somewhere doesn't sincerely believe it. In fact, I am quite certain that for any given belief, at least three people believe it, and if we are so unfortunate as for them to discover each other, they'll form a stupidity cult and attract others to the thing. If you fail to understand this, you are in great peril. Such people will attempt to re-engineer society itself so as to make their stupidity foundational the civilization you are forced by circumstances to live within. They will do so with the passion of zealots and the blissful unawareness of imbeciles, and if you are to have any chance at all of stopping them, you have to do so quickly. On this particular inanity, we are certainly too late.
0xbadcafebee 3y ago
> cannot legitimately be held morally responsible It's weasel words. Cannot legitimately be held responsible. He's saying, I accept that I/we will be held morally responsible, but in my head I'm calling shenanigans.

hackinthebochs 3y ago

What's nonsensical about it? Determining that we can't rationally hold people responsible doesn't mean that society is powerless to defend itself against bad actors. What it does is undermines the justification for moral indignation and our retributive tendencies. If someone contracted a contagious illness, we would quarantine them despite the fact that they're not responsible for their illness. There's no contradiction in defensive behavior and recognizing a lack of moral responsibility.

sickofparadox 3y ago
I am reminded of the phrase "The easiest way to prove a nihilist as a hypocrite is to point a shotgun at his head." You have reconstructed moral responsibility in no responsibility land, possibly only removing the judgement of character that comes with "defensive behavior".
- graphe 3y ago
  Moral responsibility isn't the same as responsibility. Leprosy isn't a moral failing, although people still will discriminate against lepers.
  - RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
    Is discrimination against lepers a moral failing?
- hackinthebochs 3y ago
  But the judgment of character is central to how our society conceptualizes its response to bad actors, and it informs the space of justifiable responses towards bad actors, that it matters whether the judgment of character is based on fact. Moral responsibility as we currently conceive of it has been responsible for untold atrocities throughout human history. The problem is the concept has blanket justificatory power. People who are deemed to be moral degenerates by society become authorized targets of heinous behavior with a clear conscience of the perpetrators. Undermining the concept of moral responsibility breaks the connection between a bad actor and cruelty towards them. Taking a quarantine model limits the space of allowable behaviors; heinous reactions no longer have justification. So while the result can be similar in broad strokes between the two systems, the details can end up being very different.
  - sickofparadox 3y ago
    Simply because something has been responsible for bad things does not make it worthy of doing away with motivated reasoning. Also, sometimes bad actors deserve cruelty.
    - hackinthebochs 3y ago
      >Also, sometimes bad actors deserve cruelty. So you do recognize a substantive difference between a justice system based on the concept of moral responsibility and one without. But those of us that are against cruelty are motivated to look more closely at the justifications for it. Hence we get arguments like the one I presented.
      - sickofparadox 3y ago
        A justice system without the concept of moral responsibility is one that has abolished itself. It is impossible for it to exist because justice is a concept that inherently requires morality to function. What you suggest is, again, a reconstruction of a justice system pretending it does not make moral judgement. "You were not in control of your actions, yet we have decided to lock you in a cell - for the greater good, of course".
s1artibartfast 3y ago
I dont think it avoids the moral judgement, it just obfuscates it, or replaces it with a comparable concept. You dont need free will to rationally have disgust, indignation, and retribution. You can rationally punish someone who contracted a contagious illness. All you need for rationale is switching from the idea that someone makes bad choices to the idea that someone is a bad machine.
- hackinthebochs 3y ago
  Would you "punish" your computer for crashing? Seems absurd. Presumably we don't want to engage in absurdities and irrational behavior. We want to do what is "right", for various conceptions of right. So getting clear on whether we have moral responsibility is important to getting things right.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    Why do we punish anything? I might punish my computer by replacing it because it crashes. I might punish it with a hammer after because it is cathartic. None of that relies on the computer having choice in the matter. Free will is independent of moral responsibility. you can hold someone guilty of "being bad" just as easily as making "bad choices"
    - hackinthebochs 3y ago
      >None of that relies on the computer having choice in the matter. Most normally functioning people would not feel the need to punish a tool for being a bad tool. Some may find catharsis in damaging some object that has frustrated them, but usually they later recognize the absurdity of their outburst. The point is that we all generally recognize that there are legitimate and illegitimate targets for "punishment". The question is whether people are actually legitimate targets for punishment despite our intuitions on the matter. >you can hold someone guilty of "being bad" just as easily as making "bad choices" Sure you can; nothing is going to stop you from smashing your PC to bits next time it crashes. The issue is whether it is the all things considered correct choice.

Edman274 3y ago

He may believe that people can't be held "morally" responsible for it but that doesn't necessarily mean that he thinks that we can't punish people or censure them. Like, you might not think that a 4 year old is morally responsible or "evil" for breaking his little sister's toys, but you still send them to time out anyway.

sickofparadox 3y ago
I find this to be a simple reconstruction of moral responsibility without the language associated with character judgement - essentially just word games.
- kaibee 3y ago
  The problem is that word games have real consequences. Word games can dehumanize groups and make it easier to justify atrocities. If free will exists, then retributive torture is easy to morally justify.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    I think atrocities and retributive torture are easier to justify without free will. lack of free will confirms that someone didn't just make a bad choice, but they are an inherently bad human that performs bad actions.

visarga 3y ago

We can punish people for a plurality of reasons: - for moral enforcement (requires free will doctrine) - for retribution (tit for tat) - to balance society out Even if free will doesn't exist, we can still punish people who cause harm to society, in the interest of the group. It's just society balancing itself out.

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
If free will doesn't exist, we can't *not* punish people. By definition. Those arguing against it also can't not argue. But they will lose the argue (it is inevitable), and then society will continue to punish, because it can't not do so. Determinism, whatever the logic of its premise, it intellectually bankrupt.
- kaibee 3y ago
  > If free will doesn't exist, we can't not punish people. By definition. What? You can still change your mind/update beliefs after being presented with new evidence, in fact if you're being rational, you actually have no choice but to do so. I suppose in some sense, the most 'free will' action is to choose to ignore evidence that would change your beliefs.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
    > in fact if you're being rational, Rationality implies free will. I am a clockwork robot, and even if the cogs and gearsprings mechanically approximate rationality, it is really only the affectation of such. For irrationality would also just be obeying the same mechanical pathways encoded in my brain, thus neither is superior, or preferable. I can't even really have preferences, in a meaningful sense. Also, the encoding of my personality is quite strong, and easily able to ignore the absurd snickerings of your arguments, so you won't win and change my mind, or enough minds of others to make it the dominant paradigm. Punishment for wickedness remains. You lose.
- lern_too_spel 3y ago
  I had no choice but to conclude based on evidence that the threat of punishment causes a change in the behavior of others, and since I had no choice in deriving a goal of self preservation, I have no choice but to support laws that punish others for risking that. Believing these things is no more intellectually bankrupt than believing that the Moon has no choice but to revolve around the Earth.

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago

> Is it crazy to not believe that he actually believes this? It's merely misguided. There is no belief so atrociously stupid that someone, somewhere doesn't sincerely believe it. In fact, I am quite certain that for any given belief, at least three people believe it, and if we are so unfortunate as for them to discover each other, they'll form a stupidity cult and attract others to the thing. If you fail to understand this, you are in great peril. Such people will attempt to re-engineer society itself so as to make their stupidity foundational the civilization you are forced by circumstances to live within. They will do so with the passion of zealots and the blissful unawareness of imbeciles, and if you are to have any chance at all of stopping them, you have to do so quickly. On this particular inanity, we are certainly too late.

0xbadcafebee 3y ago

> cannot legitimately be held morally responsible It's weasel words. Cannot legitimately be held responsible. He's saying, I accept that I/we will be held morally responsible, but in my head I'm calling shenanigans.