The recent Columbine thread made me think about a philosophical problem I have.
I believe that individuals are responsible for what they do, barring legal insanity a la M’Naughten. The Columbine shooters had no excuse, no justification. If they had lived, they should have been tried.
However, I also think that there are overarching public policy decisions that can positively or negatively affect people’s behavior. I think that a school administration that is complicit in the marginalization of “weird” kids makes it more likely that there will be problems.
To give another example, I believe poverty is a major cause of crime, and programs to lift people out of poverty will improve our crime rates. At the same time, I hold anyone who commits a crime 100% responsible for their actions.
Are these stances incompatible? Which focus (public policy/concentrating on the causes of behavior or individual responsibility/punishment) would be more useful if we had to pick one? Should we pursue both philosophies regardless of any logical inconsistency?
Interesting question. On another board, we talked about just such a situation. Earlier this year I think, a retired pharmicist in San Jose robbed a bank. Rising rents here had sent his rent from around 500/month to like 1500/month and he lived on a fixed income.
In that situation, it ws pretty hard to feel symathetic to what he did, but easy to say, as a society the guy never should have been in that position in the first place. I don’t think there’s an easy answer to your question.
I think this is a false dilemma, although it aptly illustrates the balancing act required for effective public policy.
[list=1][]Are these stances incompatible? Not in the least.[]Which focus (public policy/concentrating on the causes of behavior or individual responsibility/punishment) would be more useful if we had to pick one? I’m not sure you could entirely focus on the former without the latter, although we could certainly have punishment without government sponsored social aid programs (a la Dickensian London). The problem is that, without strong incentives for productivity and a strong emphasis on personal responsibility, social programs can easily produce the dreaded entitlement mentality that conservatives are forever decrying; conversely, a tunnel-vision approach to social problems which fails to address the full social context within which crime occurs simply perpetuates that social context.Should we pursue both philosophies regardless of any logical inconsistency? There is no logical inconsistency. Not to be condescending to victims of social inequities, but here’s an obvious parenting analogy: You would punish your child for robbing the cookie jar, and hold him responsible for his actions, but you would also make sure he’s well supervised, well-fed and that the cookie jar is placed on a high shelf.[/list=1]