Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxi.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!ihnp4!ihuxi!snafu
From: snafu@ihuxi.UUCP (Dave Wallis)
Newsgroups: net.misc,net.politics,net.religion,net.women
Subject: Re: Guilt and punishment
Message-ID: <794@ihuxi.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 4-Feb-84 10:51:42 EST
Article-I.D.: ihuxi.794
Posted: Sat Feb  4 10:51:42 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 8-Feb-84 06:04:50 EST
References: <791@ssc-vax.UUCP> <440@pyuxn.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Technologies, Inc., Naperville Il.
Lines: 69

Rich,

     I think your notion that our behavior is based only on chemical
reactions deserves a closer look.  This is not really a new question -
philosophers have been looking at it for a long time.  On the micro level
(i.e. at the cellular level) it seems clearly evident that you are
correct - cell actions are governed by the chemical reactions on which
they are based. But do those chemical interactions really generalize to
the macro level? 
     What you have implied in your article is that our behavior is
completely determined by our chemistry - i.e. that we have no free will. Your
position would have all of humankind wandering the planet as nothing
more than chemical robots, making no rational decisions, since all
actions and reactions would have been pre-programmed.
     I find this idea very hard to accept. The situation that would
result from this is what we identify in animals as "instinct." In
examining the world around him, man has long noticed that there is
something "different" about him - man has been able to improve his
position in the environment, develop tools, written language, etc. 
What could have given man his ability to grow and learn except the
ability to think and make decisions on a level other than the
instinctual one? 
    The very fact that we can question whether or not our decisions
are based on free will or chemistry indicates that mere chemical
reaction does not fully explain our thought and decision making
processes.
    What this all boils down to in this discussion is that I think
people can and should be held accountable for their own actions. I
agree that the rules, laws and customs of a society are arbitrary -
any other set would undoubtedly work just as well (or better), but
that set of rules is really what enables a society to exist at all.
They provide a common ground - a way for one person to predict what
another will do, or to decide what others expect of him. Except in
instances where a severe chemical imbalance prevents normal operation
of our decision making process, I believe that people *do* have the
ability to determine whether a particular behavior falls inside or
outside of the behavior deemed acceptable by the particular society.
Note that I do not deny that chemistry has anything to do with
decision making, but I do disagree that it is the only thing that
governs it.
    A problem does occur when one or more individuals disagree on what
the rules of the society are. Most societies have a method for
resolving these disagreements - they vote. If an individual defies the
rules that define the society, the society really has no choice other
than to remove that individual from the society. If they did not, it
would soon be the case that nobody would be able to determine what was
proper or improper behavior, and the "society" would cease to exist.
   I suppose there would be nothing to prevent the rapists from
starting their own culture where rape is considered the friendly thing
to do (same with any other criminal group), but I seriously doubt that
it would be a stable culture for long. Cultures (societies) exist
because they are advantageous to man, and the advantage is that they
provide an environment of cooperation and mutual goals. A society
based on rules that are anti-cooperative would not provide an
advantage for its members, and therefore would not survive long. 
     So there you have my ideas on the matter. Sorry to get on my
soapbox for so long, but some things require more of a response than
"I disagree!". I'll be happy to respond to any responses/flames, with
the exception of the really off-the-wall flames which I use to line my
cats' litter box.


-- 


                              Dave Wallis
                           ihnp4!ihuxi!snafu
                         AT&T Technologies, Inc.
                            (312) 979-5894