Up@dawn 2.0

Loading...

Friday, February 28, 2020

Quiz Mar 3

T 3 - MP 17-18; Report: Jessica, Camus: Myth of Sisyphus/Sartre: Existentialism Is a Humanism.
LISTEN

1. Who was Charles Guiteau, and what was his legal defense? 312

2. What is the rate of racial disparity in incarceration? 317

3. What are the two dimensions by which we normally understand and explain others'behavior? 321

4. Why is "therapeutic justice" a misnomer? 326

5. Stephen Morse says the real issue is what? 334

6. What do compatibilists say about freedom and responsibiilty? 340

7. Why can we not intervene with responsible agents until they commit crimes? 348

8. How does Morse summarize his objections to Hard Incompatibilism (HI), and with which Christian apologist does he concur? 355




DQ

  • Would you have voted to acquit Guiteau? Would you have supported his sentence?
  • What rationale for punishing people with demonstrable brain defects would you endorse, if any?
  • Is "he can't help it" always, never, or sometimes ("situationally") relevant to the determination of a person's responsibility and guilt?
  • Do you expect that we will resolve the "cognitive dissonance" in our criminal justice system in the "not so distant future"? 327 What conditions would enable that resolution?
  • What's new about "New Determinism"?
  • Do you have any DSM mental disorders that you'd care to share? If so, or if not, do you think that has any bearing on your personal responsibility for acts you've performed or ever will?
  • Is the legal concept of a responsible person reasonable? 335
  • Do you agree that the proponents of radical change must always bear the burden of proof? 339
  • Is a person by definition NOT a "biological machine" capable of executing contracts? 342


Posted by at

4 comments:

  1. Ed CraigMarch 1, 2020 at 12:07 PM

    Reading chapter 18 I was reminded of a passage in an MTSU paper of mine ten years ago, taken from a law review article and a neuroscience journal: “The law pursues the abstract idea of justice, while science attempts to describe and explain real observed phenomena. They are two separate systems; as one commentator observed, the law asks questions science is unable to address, and science answers questions that the law does not pose. It is not a contradiction to say that we are determined and we are free; we are determined in one system, and free in another.”

    QQs: Chapters 17 & 18

    1. The fact that our desire to blame someone intrudes on our assessments of that person’s ability to control his or her thoughts or behavior is referred to as – what? (320)

    2. What is the law’s concept of the responsible person? (335)

    ReplyDelete
  2. PhilMarch 2, 2020 at 1:37 PM

    I wonder what it would look like, if science and the law ever fully converged. I fear the result would either be bad science or dystopia.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Cooper HalkMarch 3, 2020 at 10:27 AM

    Alt. Disc. Q's:
    How do advances in neuroscience suggest that agency and free will do not exist? Why should the fact that we are biological creatures subject to the mechanisms of our brains disturb our idea of free will?
    What do mental disorders suggest about agency and free will? If one "can't help it", does that suggest they are subject to their brain's processes? What does this suggest about those who are not mentally debilitated? Are they, too, subject to their brain's biological processes in terms of agency or does the ability to make rational decisions subvert that idea?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Heather FaulknerMarch 3, 2020 at 12:46 PM

    What rationale for punishing people with demonstrable brain defects would you endorse, if any?

    I think that if someone has a demonstrable brain defect and, let's say, commits a crime, I do not think they should go to prison. However, there are sentences to mental health facilities that I think would be appropriate. I think that if the brain defect is the problem, it needs to be managed and treated.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)