jpahmad

I understand what your saying. It makes sense.I want to investigate further though. These individuals on the above scenarios are violating the NAP. However, is it rational to have sympathy for certain people who violate the NAP given that some of the circumstances that they are forced into are poisonous? Is it irrational not to have sympathy for them?I suppose that in a free world these people would be asked to make restitution or be ostracized. There is something that is bizarre though. If violating the NAP is immoral, and this person in our hypothetical situation violated the NAP, then we have the case where someone who has done something immoral could possibly receive sympathy form others.Well, there would be no prisons in a free world in the first place now that I think about itI do think it's irrational to force someone into a psychological "pressure cooker" and then expect them to behave rationallyI think for some children, being forced into school, is a "pressure cooker" scenario. They violate the NAP, they are immoral, yet I feel only sympathy for them. Some of them violate the NAP every day, yet, I do not feel that they are bad or evil. How is this possible?

There is something strange about condemning someone for violating the NAP when the person doing the accusing was the one who initially violated it in the first place.How about this example:A Nazi holding an imprisoned Jew morally culpable for assaulting another prisoner at Auschwitz.

Yes, they will be locked in jail. Or beaten. Or locked in jail and beaten. It is the nature of compulsory education. It's not a contradiction if I can prove it's self-defense. I'm not saying they don't own their actions. That obviously wouldn't make sense. I'm saying that they are not moraly culpable for their actions. Let's set up a hypothetical situation to demonstrate how this could be considered self-defense: If you come over to my house and kill my yappy little dog, that is a violaiton of the non agression principle. You've destroyed my property. However, if I lock you in my room with my yappy little dog for 10 days and you kill my dog because it is driving you crazy, then I would consider that an act of self-defense and morally valid. Clearly your choice is to go crazy, or kill the dog. Do you agree with me on that?

That makes sense. Non-aggression principle must be universal No. I'm referring to someone who has already had aggresion used against them, and is in a constant state of being aggressed against. This person also has never been taught the non-aggression principle. In fact, this person hasn't been taught anything yet, other then "don't do this, don't do that." This person is five years old and in prison(school). They can't leave. They have no control over their environment (relative to an adult) I don't see how you can compare the two situations, a reluctant child in school who has never been taught anything, and a 35 year old man who enjoys protection under the law as a autonomous "free-agent." The only way I can get out of the appearent contradiciton that I have just set up for myself is if I equate a kid lashing out at school as self-defense against his/her captors. Therefore, the 5-year old kid in school, pushing/punching someome else, is not violating the non-aggression principle. It is self-defense. Mis-directed self-defence. But self-defense nonetheless. I would say that the act of physical aggression is the child's attempt to change their environment. Since, they can't freely leave school.

My position on this is that it is destructive and irrational to hold a dysfunctional, abused, neglected 5 year old morally responsible for anything.If there is anything philosophically wrong with that assertion, or if it is invalid in anyway, let me know, because I don't want to look like an ass when I proclaim this to some of the people I see on a daily basis.If my statement is valid, then what I'm asking for is a very clean, cutting, philosophical way to communicate this to others who believe that children need to "face consequences for their actions" and then proceed to bring various punitive repercussions on them such as "time out", "no recess", "no gym class", "call parents", "in school suspension" etc..I mean, they really believe that these kids act this way because they are simply "bad kids."5 years old for Christ's sake!

I agree completely. Nine times out of Ten, if you do all of the above, you won't need to use a "reward."However, you don't want to inadvertently offer an extrinsic reward without realizing it. For example, let's take reading. If I tell my child that reading is "good", then I am giving him/her extrinsic motivation to read. Because the child will think that they can't be good unless they read.Actually, if you want to avoid any "extrinsic" motivation, then the only thing that you can say to the child to "intrinsically" motivate them is that such activity is "fun", or "feels good." This communicates to the child that the activity is an end in itself and doesn't need any further justification.When it comes to teaching piano. I always ask my kids when they first begin taking lessons this question:"What's the point in playing the piano?"They shrugI then give them the answer: "Because it's fun"They totally get it. It makes perfect sense. I'm now in a situation where I have to make sure the kid is having fun, or prove to them that whatever I ask them to do (drills, scales, tedious repetition of phrases etc..) will lead to them having even more fun.It's not that hard to do. And, no "extrinsic" reward is offered.However, I do still use "extrinsic" rewards when I feel they're needed. But, this makes up less then 10% of the reasons why kids show up at my home to get lessons. Also, I don't have any control over what their parents are telling them at home. So, I can't be certain there is nothing else going on in terms of motivation.

Yeah, let's say, a kindergarten kid lashes out at someone who is bothering him/her and punches them.Or, if you're in prison, you end up assaulting your cell mate because you can't stand them.What would be the moral verdict in those two situations? Considering that if both agents (school kids/prisoner) could leave the situation, they would.The reason I'm asking these questions is because I have to confront teachers everyday who treat children like they are little monsters. I'm trying to gather some "philosophical arsenal" so I can clearly explain my position.

O.k., let me rephrase things. If someone is being held against their will (school), are they morally responsible for the things they do under this kind of coercion? It seems pretty clear to me that if a kid doesn't want to be somewhere, and they are forced to be there, then they can not be held morally responsible for acting out against the aggression used against them. This would include all kids under the age of 18(compulsory educations laws)who "mis-behave" in school. Let's extend this to prisoners. Can someone really commit an immoral act in prison? They are forced to be there. They are forced to deal with people they don't want to deal with. How can we blame them for assaulting someone under these circumstances?

Yeah, don't forget the fact the we entirely nuked two Japanese cities full of innocent men, women, and children.

I don't know if Stefan had already addressed this. He probably has. But can someone give me the quick philosophical answer if there is one. I see adults accusing little children everyday of being "bad" or "rotten" when seeing these children act out as a result of abuse at home. Can these children be considered evil? Assuming they can't, then at what point in their lives can they be labeled morally corrupt as opposed to victims of abuse?

Who said that we should keep it? Or not keep it for that matter? I don't know if it's in humanity's best interest to keep it or not. It certainly isn't for me to decide. It is clear though that if those people with the genetic trait do not reproduce, the trait will disapear. "sweet deal?" It depends on how the pregnancy goes 9 months is a long time. If your biological children are infants or toddlers, those nine months are huge chunk of developmental time that the mother would not be fully active in. Also, I would imagine that being a professional surrogate, if it ever becomes an occupation, would have the same effect on a woman's self esteem as being a prostitute, i.e., being valued just for the fact that you have female organs.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10637532/Being-homosexual-is-only-partly-due-to-gay-gene-research-finds.html That's because, according to some researchers and speculators, there were enough people on the "down low" to keep the genetic trait in the gene pool. Someone could live two different sexual lifestyles, one that was permitted by society, and one that was not. In a free society, no one would lead a deceptive lifestyle. Homosexuality would be out in the open and people would pursue monogamous relationships with whomever they choose. Without enough surrogate mothers, this behavior would select out the "gay gene." Here is another relevant article http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26089486 I find the first and the last theory the most interesting

I don't know

O.k., how about rational shame. Shaming someone for sexual preference is irrational. What percentage of women are willing to be surrogate mother's today? Is it just a matter of price? Would every women be willing to carry someone else's baby for, say, 3 mill? I don't think there would be a high enough percentage of willing surrogate mothers to keep the genetic traits of homosexuality going (assuming it's genetic) I'm just basing this on current human nature. However, human nature could change Also, can someone be the best parent they can be if they take time away from raising their own kids to have someone else's? Don't you think children would resent this? Unless, of course, the money they got from being a surrogate mother somehow compensated for the loss of time with their own children. Or, maybe surrogate mothers would mostly be childless women. But if I were looking for a good surrogate mother, I wouldn't pick someone who has never had a baby before. I'm paying a lot of money and I want to be sure that she can reproduce.

In a free society, there would be no coercion, no shaming, and no abuse of people's lifestyle choices. Homosexuals would never have to be in the closet or on the "down low." This is great. However, if we assume homosexuality is genetic, then wouldn't the traits that lead someone to develop a homosexual preference become extinct after a few generations? I'm assuming that homosexuals in a free society wouldn't be able to have biological children without surrogates. Moreover, in a free society, I don't see too many women wanting to carry someone else's child for nine months and then just give it up. They are already having problems today with surrogate mothers becoming attached to the baby and refusing to give it up. Also, do you think people in a free society would want to donate their sperm and their eggs? Most people do these things for money right? If people were not strapped for cash, would these things still happen. It may be possible that we are all bisexual by nature and in a free society we wouldn't be placed into gender roles, therefore we would screw whoever we wanted to. That's actually probably the case. We would live like the ancient Greeks. But in this case, women and men would have to be willing to share their mates with other people without getting envious and possessive. What's the likelihood of that? Can anyone help me out with this?

What if your own child were born with a strong genetic tendency not to develop empathy. There apparently are cases, with a very small percentage of children, where as infants they are very cold and unresponsive, even unable to make eye contact. I know this taps into the nature vs nurture thing, but let's just for a moment entertain the possibility that what some researches are claiming is valid. If this infant has a very strong likelihood of growing up without the ability to empathize with other human beings, and therefore, could become very harmful to others and yourself, what would be your moral responsibility as an parent? What would be the options?

O.k, so it's all subjective right?

Exactly. That's because you want to find out information about that subject that fascinates you. This is much different than saying that "the act of reading is intrinsically rewarding." If that were the case, there would be no problem with getting children to learn how to read! It would be like eating ice-cream to them.

I agree. In fact, I think there are elements of both in every situation imaginable. The question then becomes one of degree. The language commonly used to describe motivation seems to imply that it is either one or the other, i.e., one is either intrinsically motivated or extrinsically motivated. Something that is purely intrinsically motivating should be an "end in itself", like eating when you're hungry. There are only a few things in life that I would say are "ends in themselves." For men, sex is definitely one of them. Maintaining an emotional equilibrium is one of them. However, reading, writing, and arithmetic, certainly aren't ends in themselves. In fact, I would argue that anything to do with education is not an "end in itself." Therefore, you can't expect someone to be intrinsically motivated to do it.

The hooker is gratified because she gets money for her service. The wife/girlfriend is gratified because she wants to see her husband happy. Both women are gratified, and the gratifications are not derived from the act of sex. So, by your definition, both are extrinsic. Right?

I'm not criticizing him as a person. But when you put forth a conclusion based on reason and evidence, it has to be as air-tight as possible. If it is not, then it has to be revised. No big deal. According to Alfie, there is no place in human society for games, sports, or anything of that nature. In a free society, people can choose to compete with each other or not. If you want to move to a commune and live in a resource based economy, you're free to do it. And please define for me "intrinsic motivation." I'm not convinces that it is anything distinct from "extrinsic motivation." Isn't every activity we pursue an attempt to bring ourselves to a state of gratification or emotional equilibrium?

But it shows a flaw in his logic. It's a big flaw. So, this opens up the possibility of other big misteps in his reasoning process. For one thing, this quote points to an obvious contradiciton. He can't uphold cooperation as the utimate human ideal and support the use of force at the same time.

Is it just me, or is Alfie Kohn a statist? Here is a quote form his book on competition: "The point is this: if there is enough of the necessities to go around but they are not going around, the debate must shift to the impact of competition on matters of distribution. Can the inequities be blamed on competition itself? Even if not, the key question is whether more competition would rectify the situation. It is hard to imagine how it could. Whoever has more resources is far more likely to win a contest, thus giving her even more resources for the next contest, and so on until the opponent is utterly vanquished or someone steps in to stop the competition. Government regulations and income transfer mechanisms--which free-market apologists correctly identify as limitations on pure competition--are all that prevent inequities even more pronounced than those now in existence."

if we substitute "non-existing" for the "unborn", and "existing" for "individuals", then we get the sentence: "The existing cannot make subjective decisions for the non existing." But we should take out the word "subjective" because all decisions made by individuals are subjective. An individual cannot make an "objective decision." So now we have the sentence: "The existing cannot make decisions for the non-existing." Now this makes total sense. But, it has no moral component. At least none that I can see.

How about, instead of "hateful" we use "prick-bastard-idiot-a#$hole" That should take care of it.