Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
So, I take issue with the claim that showing “free will” is an illusion gets rid of shame. If shame was only retributive in nature, then I would agree that shame should be done away with. However, since Sam Harris admits that non-retributive forms of punishment have a use, he might be wise to study some of the criminological literature out there regarding shame. Shame is arguably a powerful form of informal social control. If shaming can be used in a non-retributive fashion and an offender can be allowed to reintegrate into the society/culture/group, then it arguably can be a very useful tool in preventing crime. In a common sense way, if someone imagines that doing something would be too shameful to do, the person might never perform the action. That includes white collar crime, property crime and violent crime. By the way, I don’t believe in “free will.” So, this is not an argument that “free will” exists. It is simply an argument that Sam Harris is making a big mistake by arguing that shame should go away if there is no “free will.” I highly recommend that Sam Harris check out the book I give a link to below.
If anyone else agrees with me, then perhaps you would bring this to the attention of Sam Harris, because I think he could do damage by arguing against shame. Pride, I am less sure about. I don’t really think the world needs more pride. However, the world could actually benefit from more reintegrative shame. In America, we are sorely lacking shame as a form of social control (shame that involves reintegrating a given offender, rather than ostracizing the person for life), I think. I emailed Sam Harris. However, I doubt he read it and I think he’s really overlooked some important ideas and facts about shame. Please, consider contacting him about this if you see this. Thanks.
I don’t think his argument addressed whether or not shame was useful; but whether or not it made sense. To give you an analogy, you could make a baby feel a deep sense of shame every time she accidentally fell down while learning to walk. Behaviorism says this would likely be an effective form of punishment and actually improve her performance in learning to walk, but would it make sense? Two different questions.
Is shame somehow necessary when teaching a child to pee straight, Dennis? I wonder how long I’d be allowed to continue writing my own Service Plans if one of them included instructions in the use of shame with toilet training. I have a feeling those pages would make the rounds across the state and that I’d suddenly have a major problem on my hands.
I like the OP description of how shame can potentially be utilized.
So, I take issue with the claim that showing “free will” is an illusion gets rid of shame. If shame was only retributive in nature, then I would agree that shame should be done away with. However, since Sam Harris admits that non-retributive forms of punishment have a use, he might be wise to study some of the criminological literature out there regarding shame. Shame is arguably a powerful form of informal social control. If shaming can be used in a non-retributive fashion and an offender can be allowed to reintegrate into the society/culture/group, then it arguably can be a very useful tool in preventing crime. In a common sense way, if someone imagines that doing something would be too shameful to do, the person might never perform the action. That includes white collar crime, property crime and violent crime. By the way, I don’t believe in “free will.” So, this is not an argument that “free will” exists. It is simply an argument that Sam Harris is making a big mistake by arguing that shame should go away if there is no “free will.” I highly recommend that Sam Harris check out the book I give a link to below.
If anyone else agrees with me, then perhaps you would bring this to the attention of Sam Harris, because I think he could do damage by arguing against shame. Pride, I am less sure about. I don’t really think the world needs more pride. However, the world could actually benefit from more reintegrative shame. In America, we are sorely lacking shame as a form of social control (shame that involves reintegrating a given offender, rather than ostracizing the person for life), I think. I emailed Sam Harris. However, I doubt he read it and I think he’s really overlooked some important ideas and facts about shame. Please, consider contacting him about this if you see this. Thanks.
Is shame somehow necessary when teaching a child to pee straight, Dennis? I wonder how long I’d be allowed to continue writing my own Service Plans if one of them included instructions in the use of shame with toilet training. I have a feeling those pages would make the rounds across the state and that I’d suddenly have a major problem on my hands.
I like the OP description of how shame can potentially be utilized.
Not at all, but that has been a common approach for many decades; same with sex.
DEL: If anyone else agrees with me, then perhaps you would bring this to the attention of Sam Harris, because I think he could do damage by arguing against shame. Pride, I am less sure about. I don’t really think the world needs more pride. However, the world could actually benefit from more reintegrative shame. In America, we are sorely lacking shame as a form of social control (shame that involves reintegrating a given offender, rather than ostracizing the person for life), I think. I emailed Sam Harris. However, I doubt he read it and I think he’s really overlooked some important ideas and facts about shame. Please, consider contacting him about this if you see this. Thanks.
I get what you’re saying about shame, but, unfortunately, because of our misplaced values, Americans feel shame about the wrong things…for example, being “unsuccessful”, having crooked teeth, failing to have orgasms, and deciding to opt out of a pregnancy.
So, I take issue with the claim that showing “free will” is an illusion gets rid of shame. If shame was only retributive in nature, then I would agree that shame should be done away with.
It’s about responsibility.
If you can’t really be considered responsible for your position/situation/state of mind, which in turn is what drives your behavior, then you’re not really responsible for that behavior, thus there’s no shame (or honor) in it. It works in theory/on paper—makes perfect sense, but it’s far less than certain that it’s a very good description of reality.
So, I take issue with the claim that showing “free will” is an illusion gets rid of shame. If shame was only retributive in nature, then I would agree that shame should be done away with.
It’s about responsibility.
If you can’t really be considered responsible for your position/situation/state of mind, which in turn is what drives your behavior, then you’re not really responsible for that behavior, thus there’s no shame (or honor) in it. It works in theory/on paper—makes perfect sense, but it’s far less than certain that it’s a very good description of reality.
SkepticX, the idea that you cannot be held responsible for your actions if you do not have free will is a common idea, but is based on a logical error that, as you suggest, makes it irrelevant to reality.
I find the following argument clarifies the real issue, which is what the goals are that justify the claimed ‘ought’.
Assume there is no free will. Regardless of that, there would be no logical error in saying “If our ultimate goal is to maintain the benefits of cooperation in groups and thereby increase well-being, then people ought (justified by this ultimate goal) to be held responsible for their actions to the extent that doing so maintains the benefits of cooperation in groups and thereby increases well-being.” This is in fact the criteria cultures normally use for holding people responsible for their actions. It results in the normal exceptions for small children, some cases of mental illness, and so forth.
Saying “People ought not be held responsible for their actions because they do not have free will” is logically correct only if your ultimate goal is “not holding people responsible if there is no free will”, which would be an ultimate goal only of a nutter.
A similar argument can be made about whether you ought to feel shame and guilt. It leads to the conclusion that whether you ought to feel shame and guilt is just a function of the ultimate goal that justifies this ought. Whether or not we have free will becomes irrelevant.
