Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!ncar!ico!nbires!matt
From: matt@nbires.nbi.com (Matthew Meighan)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Free will and responsibility (was Re: Making fires...)
Summary: Skinner's view is fascism
Message-ID: <387@nbires.nbi.com>
Date: 27 Apr 89 18:56:01 GMT
References: <10333@ihlpb.ATT.COM> <3850@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
Reply-To: matt@nbires.UUCP (Matthew Meighan)
Organization: NBI Inc, Boulder CO
Lines: 57

In article <3850@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) writes:
>From article <10333@ihlpb.ATT.COM>, by arm@ihlpb.ATT.COM (Macalalad):
>" In article <17473@cup.portal.com> dan-hankins@cup.portal.com (Daniel B Hankins) writes:
>" >...  Once in full swing, such approaches to suppressing
>" >behavior unwanted by society would lead to far more effective deterrents to
>" >crime.
>" 
>" This brings to mind a few books like A Clockwork Orange, Brave New World,
>" and 1984.  In all of these books, scientific advances enabled governments
>" to control and modify the behavior of its citizens.
>" 
>" That someone could even suggest that this is a good thing to do shocks
>" me. ...
>
>Whether one judges it a good thing depends on what one compares it
>to.  If I understood the argument in Skinner's _Beyond freedom and
>dignity_ (and I'm not sure I did), it was that our behavior *is*
>controlled, and will come to be more controlled in the future.
>By an LA street gang boss, a General Foods executive, a political
>demagogue, Rajneesh -- but the trick is to try to name your poison.
>

This argument -- that we're controlled anyway, so we should choose our
poison -- is an extremely pernicious and evil one.  I also believe it is
utterly insincere and cynical in that it is not put forth by those who
would be controlled, but by those who would impose control on others.

In other words, "If I don't control you, someone else will.  And they
are worse than me.  So embrace my control, it is the best thing for you."

This is the argument of a would-be facist dictator and nothing else.
Look at history; they've all said this very thing.  It's morally
equivalent to telling a rape victim, "Look, you're going to get raped
sooner or later.  And I'm gentler than most.  So you should be glad
this is happening to you."

People who seriously advocate this are a real danger to humanity and
should probably be summarily imprisoned.  By their own argument, they
can hardly complain about this -- they're going to be controlled
anyway, so why not be in prison.  Of course, the real thrust of their
argument is not that THEY will be controlled, but that YOU will.

The argument is utter nonsense unless we are prepared to accept its
premise -- that we are going to be controlled anyway by a street gang
boss, a GM exec, or somebody.  But this premise flies in the face of
history, and to accept it takes us not only "beyond" our freedom and
our dignity, but our humanity as well.  Skinner's title alone makes it
plain what he is advocating -- that we give up our dignity as human
beings and volunteer to become lobotomized slaves.

Personally, I'll take freedom and dignity over Skinner's soul-less
(not to mention utterly fanciful and unobtainable) utopia.

-- 

Matt Meighan          
matt@nbires.nbi.com (nbires\!matt)