You raise an interesting point. I am not certain how this could be studied directly. You ask, "What of it?" I have no answer to that. If you can ask that question, we are operating on different wavelengths. If you do not believe that people are free to choose between alternatives, then we are making fundamentally different assumptions about homo sapiens.
Completely disagree. If all impoverished people or even the majority engaged in crime (especially violent crime), I think that you would have a point. I am not saying that all choices are the same, but only that they are there for almost everyone. Unless we agree that people are capable of making choices and understanding the implications of those choices, one of the fundamental functional prerequisites of living in any society is rendered moot.
Thank you for your interest in my views. But I think that our points of view are so fundamentally different that I don't think that I have any more to add to this discussion. All best of luck and kudos to you as a discussant.
OK. Here goes. If you take the view of a Skinnerian, all choice is illusory and we are all the products of hard determinism, rich or poor. If you have not already done so, I recommend your reading "Beyond Freedom and Dignity" in which he clearly outlines his views that all behavior is a function of its consequences. He may be right, but the functional prerequisites of any society require that we hold all people, at least in principle, responsible for their behavior. To not do so would sanction "the war of all against all," which would lead to the dissolution of society.
The only people for whom there are no choices (aside from what you think of Skinner) are those who have guns held to their heads while making their choices or to the heads of loved ones, etc. In speaking of Sophie's choice, you cite an exceptional circumstance, or perhaps you could cite the case of Jean Valjean from Les Miserables. These are exceptional cases (not sure about Valjean which might have been more common in France in the 19th century) which to me prove the rule about choice being a fundamental assumption for the maintenance of any society. If Skinner is right and choice is an illusion, then the reality of the maintenance of any society calls for us to accept this illusion as real.
You raise an interesting point. I am not certain how this could be studied directly. You ask, "What of it?" I have no answer to that. If you can ask that question, we are operating on different wavelengths. If you do not believe that people are free to choose between alternatives, then we are making fundamentally different assumptions about homo sapiens.
Completely disagree. If all impoverished people or even the majority engaged in crime (especially violent crime), I think that you would have a point. I am not saying that all choices are the same, but only that they are there for almost everyone. Unless we agree that people are capable of making choices and understanding the implications of those choices, one of the fundamental functional prerequisites of living in any society is rendered moot.
Thank you for your interest in my views. But I think that our points of view are so fundamentally different that I don't think that I have any more to add to this discussion. All best of luck and kudos to you as a discussant.
OK. Here goes. If you take the view of a Skinnerian, all choice is illusory and we are all the products of hard determinism, rich or poor. If you have not already done so, I recommend your reading "Beyond Freedom and Dignity" in which he clearly outlines his views that all behavior is a function of its consequences. He may be right, but the functional prerequisites of any society require that we hold all people, at least in principle, responsible for their behavior. To not do so would sanction "the war of all against all," which would lead to the dissolution of society.
The only people for whom there are no choices (aside from what you think of Skinner) are those who have guns held to their heads while making their choices or to the heads of loved ones, etc. In speaking of Sophie's choice, you cite an exceptional circumstance, or perhaps you could cite the case of Jean Valjean from Les Miserables. These are exceptional cases (not sure about Valjean which might have been more common in France in the 19th century) which to me prove the rule about choice being a fundamental assumption for the maintenance of any society. If Skinner is right and choice is an illusion, then the reality of the maintenance of any society calls for us to accept this illusion as real.