Ok. Let's flesh this out. I might be mistaken. (and thank you for your thoughts) I do think that the naturalist account regarding punishment does call into account the historic/common (vengence) basis for punishment that is prevalent in society. I am like you, I do not understand "deserving". But I think what is being said is that the "purpose" for such punishment, denial of rewards, scolding, etc. is for us to live in a civil society. Actions by purely natural beings should not be based on "free will"/dualism/god figure and thus no retributive (vengence/"deserving") punishments. Those who decide to break the laws of a civil society should still be held responsible for their actions...actions that are not derived from some supernatural genesis.
Now, I am not arguing the soundness of such a thought. This is just my take on what is being said about punishment in a natualistic framwork. So, I think to answer "for what purpose" is that behavior is conditioned (by rewards and punishments) so we can live in a civil society. By conditioned I do not mean manipulated by some mad scientist or rogue underworld gov. How else can we live together? I am sure Jason might have something to say on this, too. On Nov 5, 1:17 pm, Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > <<Yes it does..."call into question the basis" >> > > Still "no". This idea of "deserving punishment" is alien to me. I > ask, "for what purpose?" --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
