The better angels of our nurture

[boztopia]

From author Matt Ridley's Nature Via Nurture:

"To base any moral position on natural fact, whether that fact is derived from nature or from nurture, is asking for trouble. In my morality, and I hope in yours, some things are bad but natural, like dishonesty and violence; others are good but less natural, like generosity and fidelity."I've been

Comments

Re: Shortsightedness

[jiffysquid]

From working with people who've experienced traumatic brain injury, stroke, brain tumors and so forth, there are some people who are _incapable_ of rational thought and proper emotional control. When certain parts of the brain are destroyed, there is no choice to pause to ask themselves if these are really good ideas.

I'm not about to call someone evil just because they are biologically capable of thinking these things through. Some have gone back to being able to think about their actions when the tumor is removed and have to live with the guilt of (killing their child in a rage, etc.) for the rest of their life. There are brain surgeries being tried to help people gain control over their actions. The days of Clockwork Orange are here--Psychosurgery is a reality, and I'm not sure how I feel about that.

Is it ethically right to destroy parts of people's brains in hopes of being able to give them that ability to pause to ask themselves if what they are doing is right? At what point do we draw the line of what kinds of psychosurgery are for someone's own good, vs. what are for the convenience of society?

Anyways, I do think there are people who perform evil acts because they are biolocially incapable of having an actual choice to do evil or good. I would say the person is only truly evil if are capable of taking the time to pause and ask themselves if they are good ideas... and still chooses to go ahead with them. Does that mean total amnesty for those who aren't capable of making the choice? No. Lock them up, treat them if possible, but don't despise them for things that are not under their control.

Chemical imbalance

[boztopia]

You raise an interesting point that I hadn't considered. If we start "fixing" people's brains to prevent criminal or sociopathic tendencies, how long will it be before some fundie with a trust fund decides to bankroll efforts to genetically cure homosexuality? Or changes in skin pigmentation?

It's a slippery slope. I believe that a person should have the right to alter or modify their own bodies to their hearts' content, but that others should not have the right to make that choice for them.

Re: Chemical imbalance

[bitterbert]

Putting the gene in eugenics, eh?