On Mon, 3 Feb 2003 11:09:45 -0800 (PST) andie nachgeborenen
<andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com> writes:
> Miles' proposal than we drop the concept of
> "intention" from human relations and the explanation
> of human behavior is a fun bit of philosophical
> speculation, but this is not serious politics. It is,
> incidentally, possible to be a determinsit and believe
> that there are intentions that are causally efficious.
> This position is called compatibilism. As for testing
> the existence and causal efficacy of intentions, you
> can and do do it every time you act. I form an
> intention to respond to you, and lo! I find myself
> typing this note.
Well, I think that Miles is on to something here. The extreme enphasis that our culture places on the role of individual intentions as the determining factor in human social behavior, goes far beyond what can be vindicated by modern behavioral or social science. That indicates to me that we are dealing here with ideology, rather than a scientifically verifiable understanding of social behavior.
Of course philosophers have been formulating various sorts of compatibilisms for years and years, but I think we should heed Ted Honderich's warning against accepting compatibilisms on the cheap. Any viable sort of scientific determinism is going to require us to change the way that we conceive of ourselves. Honderich insists that while determinism can be reconciled with notions of freedom as voluntariness, we must accept that determinism at the same time requires that we sacrifice our notions of freedom as origination. And in Honderich's opinion that does imply that we rethink our notions concerning such matters as retributive punishment and of defenses of social and economic inequality in terms of just deserts, which presuppose a conception of freedom as origination.
>
> But more to the point, there is absolutely zero payoff
> in esscalating a political discussion to metaphysics.
That point is certainly well taken. One of the consequences of the development of behavioral science is that this issue is being gradually taken out of the hands of the philosophers and is being placed in the hands of behavioral and social scientists. Philosophers can continue to debate whether human behavior in general is causally necessitated or not, but when the behavioral scientists are able to demonstrate causal linkages, say between crime rates and various social or economic indices, then that becomes something whose public policy implications can then be discussed and debated without getting into metaphysical debate.
> I have been trying drag the abortion discussion out
> that realm in my contributions here. Let's get back on
> track. We will never get enough agreement or, or
> interest in, the metaphysical questions to have these
> bear on politics in a useful way, at least in a free
> society.
>
> jks
>
>
> --- Miles Jackson <cqmv at pdx.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 2 Feb 2003, andie nachgeborenen wrote:
> >
> > > OK, so what is your deep scientific alaternative
> > to the idea that
> > > beliefsa nd desires are important in explaining
> > human behavior? Are you
> > > an elimininative materialist in the manner of Paul
> > and Patricia
> > > Churchland? And even if you you, why do you think
> > this is relevant to
> > > seriiosu political dicsussion?
> > >
> >
> > I know it is a very popular idea in our society to
> > attribute social
> > behavior to individual psychological states and
> > processes. It is the
> > basis of our economic system, our legal system, our
> > marriage customs.
> > However, philosophers have been trying to rebut the
> > notion of
> > determinism for millenia, psychologists have
> > rigorously studied
> > human behavior for about 100 years, and no one has
> > been able to
> > logically and/or empirically demonstrate that
> > intentions are a
> > causal force that influences behavior. Radical
> > behaviorists
> > (Jim F. on our list?) point out that any claim that
> > behavior is
> > "intentional" cannot be empirically tested. Even if
> > a person
> > says "I ate that apple because I wanted to", a
> > behaviorist can
> > plausibly claim that this statement itself is
> > determined by
> > factors other than intent. (See, e.g., the
> > cross-cultural
> > research on individualism/collectivism, on how our
> > emphasis
> > on personal choice, intent and responsibly is far
> > from
> > universal.)
> >
> > I'm not bringing this up to be clever (or to waste
> > bandwidth).
> > The fact that intention is not a topic for serious
> > political
> > discussion, despite the fact that there is no
> > powerful
> > evidence that demonstrates its existence, is curious
> > to me.
> > Why is this unsubstantiated concept so prevalent in
> > our
> > society? --To apply crude Marxism: perhaps because
> > it
> > facilitates capitalist social relations?
> >
> > Miles
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com
>
________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com