Rex Allen wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Rex Allen<> wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 6:21 AM, Stathis Papaioannou<> 
>> wrote:
>>> Dennett didn't invent compatibilism. It has a long history and
>>> extensive literature.
> Dawkins has some good things to say on the subject I think:
It seems foolish to beat Basil's car because (1) we know the beating 
will not improve it's function and (2) we know that is must be possible 
to fix it (since we built it in the first place).  However neither of 
these is true in the case of dealing with a person who has committed a 
crime (I disdain the word "criminal" as if it were a separate species).  
Such a person may be deterred from further crimes by some punishment and 
more to the point other persons may be deterred by the example.  
Furthermore we have no idea how to "fix" the person in a mechanistic way 
- and if we did would it be ethical (c.f. "Clockwork Orange").


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to