In any case, the law generally doesn't care much
>about our
> > > intentions, at least ex ante. It modifies our behavior by giving
>us
> > > incentives and disintentives. Don't deal drugs because you will go
>to jail
> > > for a long time. . . . >
> > You raised a number if good points that I'll address later. For
>now,
> > though, I'll say only this: operant conditioning, despite what B.F.
>Skinner
> > may've thought, works by altering the mental states of the agents
>involved.
But not necessarily by giving them morally good intentions. I am not a
behaviorist. The view of the law I give here is entirely neutral on any
theory of the nature of mind. It is consisitent with Cartesian dualism or
eliminative materialism. The point is that the law doesn't care about your
intentions as long as you behave. Deterrence means putting would-be bad guys
in fear of the consequences of getting caught. The law doesn't care if you
are a good person who obeys the rules because of inbred decency rather than
a bad person who chafes at the bit, so long as you obey them.
> >
> > -- Luke
>
>==========
>Well if we had a free market those who sold heroin would be recognized
>for what they are; capitalists selling a commodity. So maybe the wrong
>people are being "operantly conditioned."
>
>Ian
I wasn't arguing the merits of any substantive law, just giving an example. As you know there are lots of lawswe have that I disagree with. We can debate legalization of drugs in another context. My thought is just that whatever lawswe have they work the same way, on changing behavior, not on changing intentions.
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp