Post Covid 19 beliefs

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

If punishment curbed people's behaviour there would be no crime - well certainly no reoffending. But we know that most crime is committed by reoffenders, which demonstrates that punishment has very little impact on reoffending behaviour.

Punishment might work as a measure of justice, it may well keep people safe while offenders are in prison, but it is piss-poor at changing behaviours.

My experience is that there are quite a few people who are deterred by the thought of the punishment. The stats for people who were deterred aren't available to measure against the reoffending rate. Plus there are lots of people who don't re-offend after they leave prison. I think it's difficult to conclude that the threat of punishment does not work.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I think you are confusing the threat of punishment with the threat of getting caught - they aren't the same thing.

Not sure what the difference is in terms of affecting human behaviour. Can you please explain? You would only get punished if you got caught presumably.

UK stats indicate that at least 75% of offenders go on to reoffend having been punished - hardly supports the notion that punishment changes reoffending behaviour. There is actually good evidence that punishment and harsher punishment not only didn't reduce reoffending behaviour, but actually slightly increases it.

How many of those is because they do not have any structure or discipline to their life or a means of earning an income, or because they are addicts? I don't pretend there are simple answers but I do think the threat of punishment deters a lot of adults from doing something that would incur that punishment, but may not deter other adults, who may have a bigger appetite for risk.

[ProfessorDavey]

My experience is that there are quite a few people who are deterred by the thought of the punishment. The stats for people who were deterred aren't available to measure against the reoffending rate. Plus there are lots of people who don't re-offend after they leave prison. I think it's difficult to conclude that the threat of punishment does not work.

Oh the world according to Gabriella's experience - heard this one before.

I prefer actual evidence based on reoffending rates. Surely if the threat of punishment might have an effect, then actual punishment would have a much greater effect, and the harsher the punishment the greater the deterrent to reoffend. But the evidence doesn't bear this out.

Currently due to police capacity, the threat of punishment for minor crimes, e.g. bike theft, is effectively zero. So why don't I (and countless others go out a knick a few bikes) - the reason is because I and other people recognise it to be wrong, not because of the threat of punishment.

[ProfessorDavey]

Not sure what the difference is in terms of affecting human behaviour. Can you please explain? You would only get punished if you got caught presumably.

The difference is huge.

Actually in many cases crimes are committed in the heat of the moment without any consideration of the consequences. But where the person is taking a more measured decision the threat of getting caught is the key deterrent, the actual punishment is so many steps away it simply doesn't affect behaviour.

And if punishment had a genuine effect on behaviour, why do 75% of UK offenders who have been punished go on to offend again. And why have studies shown that if you make the punishment more harsh, then reoffending rates increase by 3%, rather than decrease.

[ProfessorDavey]

How many of those is because they do not have any structure or discipline to their life or a means of earning an income, or because they are addicts? I don't pretend there are simple answers but I do think the threat of punishment deters a lot of adults from doing something that would incur that punishment, but may not deter other adults, who may have a bigger appetite for risk.

Which is why properly designed rehabilitation programmes do work in changing behaviour, but punishment doesn't.

As I've said before, punishment is important for justice, punishment (by locking people up) may make the general public more safe as dangerous criminals are behind bars, but punishment is really poor at changing people's behaviours.

Restorative justice, in other words getting offenders to recognise the consequences of their offending does work in changing behaviours - punishment doesn't.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Oh the world according to Gabriella's experience - heard this one before.

I prefer actual evidence based on reoffending rates. Surely if the threat of punishment might have an effect, then actual punishment would have a much greater effect, and the harsher the punishment the greater the deterrent to reoffend. But the evidence doesn't bear this out.

Currently due to police capacity, the threat of punishment for minor crimes, e.g. bike theft, is effectively zero. So why don't I (and countless others go out a knick a few bikes) - the reason is because I and other people recognise it to be wrong, not because of the threat of punishment.

Are there any stats on the reduction in different behaviours due to the threat of getting caught and punished? Fines for not wearing seat belts, parking fines, tax penalties? Are surveys carried out asking people what offences they might have considered if they weren't worried about getting caught and punished. Fear of adverse consequences can be a pretty good motivator. Re-offenders is one part of the picture but it does not take into account the people who were deterred from committing a crime in the first place by the threat of getting caught and punished.

I don't think it necessarily follows that experiencing actual punishment would have a bigger effect than the threat of punishment. For example, the threat of punishment still leaves you the opportunity to make a better choice that will not incur the punishment and adversely affect your future financial opportunities. Once you are actually punished, the circumstances of your life can change a lot e.g opportunities that were available to you before the punishment may no longer be available because you have a criminal record. Limited opportunities could make life more difficult, affect your emotions and judgement and lead you to commit crime again.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

The difference is huge.

Actually in many cases crimes are committed in the heat of the moment without any consideration of the consequences. But where the person is taking a more measured decision the threat of getting caught is the key deterrent, the actual punishment is so many steps away it simply doesn't affect behaviour.

And if punishment had a genuine effect on behaviour, why do 75% of UK offenders who have been punished go on to offend again. And why have studies shown that if you make the punishment more harsh, then reoffending rates increase by 3%, rather than decrease.

Yes I would agree that the threat of getting caught is the deterrent, but if you knew that if you got caught parking in a restricted parking area and the fine would be 10p I am pretty sure a lot more people would take the risk of getting caught - so the punishment would also have to be something that would deter the behaviour.

And of course the punishment would not have the same effect on every individual - some would tolerate the punishment better than others - so a very rich person may not be deterred by the risk of a £1000 fine but a poorer person would. Presumably the threat of prison would also affect different people differently.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

But that is just pure sophistry.

If someone is the victim of a painful experience and you think the reason they suffered that painful experience is because they themselves caused pain to someone else in the past that is clearly victim blaming - in other words placing the responsibility for the painful experience (blaming) on the person who is harmed by that painful experience (the victim).

It seems to me of little consequence whether 'in the past' means earlier in that individual's life or in a previous life (if you believe in reincarnation), except the latter is rather more offensive as firstly you do not know that there was a previous life and secondly there is much less direct relationship between purported reincarnated existences rather than earlier and later periods in a single life.

And the notion of 'teaching a lesson' is a classic trope in victim blaming behaviour - 'serves you right you were raped if you went out in that skirt - you'll learn to dress more modestly next time'.

I do not think it follows that recognising the concept of karma and thinking it might be in play is automatically the same as victim-blaming, though some people may well make use of the concept of karma to actually blame a victim. Karma is considered a complex interaction of positives and negatives that people are subject to, which is a passive state, whereas blame is an active verb where someone would have to pass judgement and intentionally make a declaration that the victim is to blame. Karma is the idea that actions in a past life could have an inevitable adverse knock-on effect in a subsequent life, which is not the same as actively passing judgement and blaming the victim. 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Please see Udayana comment.  Whether there is karma or a ruling judging God, I don't know, but adversity can be a powerful learning experience about one's self.

Not in all circumstances - but I agree with you that there are many circumstances where adversity is a positive thing that builds resilience or gives greater understanding, changes view points and behaviour, leaves people feeling their lives have been enriched etc. But not sure that argument is palatable when lots of people die.

On the other hand the issue of climate change is all about telling people that millions of people are going to die unless people change their behaviour. Maybe PD will consider that message victim-blaming?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Hi everyone,

In the wake of the Covid 19 pandemic, has anyone's beliefs about the nature of life and death changed significantly?

I think it has reminded me how fragile life is and the limitations of human abilities in preventing death, and how significantly our behaviour can change when faced with a life or death threat.

Have any atheists begun to see some merit in spiritual beliefs....not necessarily in a Christian God or other specific religious beliefs?! 

Have any religious people had any change of thinking about their beliefs in God or the after-life or other supernatural things?

Any beliefs that have been further strengthened?

Any views?

Sriram

I think my belief has strengthened as there is less to distract me - no going out for entertainment or to socialise or to exercise, less visits to the supermarket etc so more time to spend on what seems important - time with the family. Husband and both children are home all day (not away at university. school or hanging out with friends), and we have cooked together and eaten together at the table every day, and cleared away together. As we are fasting for Ramadan the lock down has been helpful in that respect.

None of us would be spending so much time at home if it wasn't for the alarming threat of catching Covid-19 and getting very ill ourselves (and possible dying) or passing it on to more vulnerable people who could die. Actually, just the thought of having to isolate for 14 days is enough of a deterrent to alter our normal behaviours and inclinations.

[Sriram]

I think it has reminded me how fragile life is and the limitations of human abilities in preventing death, and how significantly our behaviour can change when faced with a life or death threat.I think my belief has strengthened as there is less to distract me - no going out for entertainment or to socialise or to exercise, less visits to the supermarket etc so more time to spend on what seems important - time with the family. Husband and both children are home all day (not away at university. school or hanging out with friends), and we have cooked together and eaten together at the table every day, and cleared away together. As we are fasting for Ramadan the lock down has been helpful in that respect.

None of us would be spending so much time at home if it wasn't for the alarming threat of catching Covid-19 and getting very ill ourselves (and possible dying) or passing it on to more vulnerable people who could die. Actually, just the thought of having to isolate for 14 days is enough of a deterrent to alter our normal behaviours and inclinations.

Yes...spending more time with family helps focus on our priorities and to shed the 'action...action...do something' syndrome that most people are caught in.

That could further help in focusing on oneself and ones feelings and thoughts. More time to 'Travel within'. 

[Sriram]

Yes I did - but most of it is guff and non-sense, for example:

We can picture the proton as the Higher self and the electron as our Lower Self.  The further away the Lower Self is from the centre, the more energy it has and the more unstable it is. It tends to bond with others and get involved in activities more and more.

and

The concept of Fractals wherein patterns seem to repeat in Nature at all levels, indicate that there could be certain natural phenomena from which we can learn about such abstract patterns that work in our lives. We could draw on certain well known theories and see if we can adopt a similar model to understand Karma.

But what is absolutely clear from the article is the concept that effectively means that if you do bad stuff you will have bad stuff happen to you in the form of pain and suffering. So not just the 'headline' quote that I post here again:

It is believed that any person who does something wrong or selfish acquires bad karma, while anyone who does something good and selfless acquires good karma.

A person who acquires bad karma will face troubles and misfortunes such that the bad karma is eventually eliminated.

but this too:

If we indulge in bad karmic actions, it is only through what we perceive as ‘suffering and pain’ that they can be erased. This is the only ‘cleaning’ process. There is no other way.

To understand what I have written about Karma one needs to understand the total philosophy that I believe in.

First of all....if you believe that right & wrong are merely social requirements with no absolute purpose or meaning....all that I say will not hold any meaning to you. Might as well shrug your shoulders and walk away from the discussion.

If on the other hand, we believe that life has a greater purpose....we can leave it all to God's wisdom without going too deep into it. Or alternatively, we could try to understand what the big picture is and what our purpose could be.

It is in the latter case that karma becomes meaningful.  In my view Karma is not a 'tit for tat' or about righting any personal wrong. IMO, Karma is some sort of a primordial energy that we have acquired. No idea why or how.  This is like the idea of Original Sin that is common in the Abrahamic religions.

This primordial energy has resulted in great instability or in-equilibrium. Moving from the state of instability to stability is what is 'Right' and moving backwards towards instability is 'Wrong'.  In other words, It is this pull towards stability on one side and towards instability on the other, that is the game of life. This is the tussle between 'God and the Devil'. 

Karma is about acquiring energy and becoming unstable or about shedding energy and becoming stable. The more unstable we become, the more the corrective action that we will experience. This is what we see as punishment. The more we move towards stability, the less corrective action we experience. This is the peace that is seen as the reward.

Cheers.

Sriram

[ProfessorDavey]

To understand what I have written about Karma one needs to understand the total philosophy that I believe in.

Blimey I didn't realise you wrote this - in which case you can hardly dismiss you 'headline' statement, namely.

It is believed that any person who does something wrong or selfish acquires bad karma, while anyone who does something good and selfless acquires good karma.

A person who acquires bad karma will face troubles and misfortunes such that the bad karma is eventually eliminated.

And why have you written so much complete non-sense, for example about fractals and sub-atomic energetics. I'm sorry but this is non-sense on stilts. And has this article been peer reviewed in any way for coherence and credibility? I suspect not - anyone can write any old garbage and place it on the web - just because it appears on a web site doesn't mean it has any credibility Sriram.

[ProfessorDavey]

First of all....if you believe that right & wrong are merely social requirements with no absolute purpose or meaning....all that I say will not hold any meaning to you. Might as well shrug your shoulders and walk away from the discussion.

You do understand that it is perfectly possible to consider that 'right and wrong' are entirely social construct, yet have clear purpose and meaning, namely purpose and meaning within that societal context.

This is what I consider to be the case. Social animals, including humans, require social rules and customs to allow their social groups to operate effectively. From this requirement flow the concept of right and wrong - behaviours that are acceptable and not acceptable within that social context, typically with methods to embed those social rules within the group, via learning and sanctions or punishments for those that digress. We see this not only in humans but also many other higher animal species that have highly developed social behaviours - most obviously many other primate species.

What about the meaning and purpose - well those relate most proximally to keeping the group together and functioning well. But in the longer range this is all driven by the evolutionary imperative - groups that develop these rules are more successful, more likely to generate offspring that survive and therefore the development of effective societal rules and concepts of right and wrong drive evolutionary advantage.

Note no god required. So until you recognise that you can consider the social constructs of right and wrong to have meaning and purpose within that social construct without the need for god ... well there's not much point in continuing the discussion.

[ekim]

Karma is about acquiring energy and becoming unstable or about shedding energy and becoming stable. The more unstable we become, the more the corrective action that we will experience. This is what we see as punishment. The more we move towards stability, the less corrective action we experience. This is the peace that is seen as the reward.

Cheers.

Sriram

The way I understood the relationship with karmic forces was slightly different and where stability was not the desired goal either.  I seem to remember that there were three gunas - rajas (as action), tamas (as stability) and sattwa (similar to intelligence) and that the idea was to achieve harmony through the use of sattwa by allowing  rajas to stimulate tamas and tamas to stabilise rajas.  Excessive rajas leads to chaos and excessive tamas leads to inertia.  Continuous harmony was the goal.

[Sriram]

The way I understood the relationship with karmic forces was slightly different and where stability was not the desired goal either.  I seem to remember that there were three gunas - rajas (as action), tamas (as stability) and sattwa (similar to intelligence) and that the idea was to achieve harmony through the use of sattwa by allowing  rajas to stimulate tamas and tamas to stabilise rajas.  Excessive rajas leads to chaos and excessive tamas leads to inertia.  Continuous harmony was the goal.

Yes... There are different ways of understanding these abstract concepts.  In Hinduism there is no one scriptural authority on such matters. Different people have different views over the ages. I have given my way of understanding it.

Even an electron can be understood in different ways. As a particle, as a wave, as something in superposition, as a Field, as the vibration of a String......

These are just models that give us a sketchy view of reality. What reality actually is...we don't know. 

[Udayana]

The way I understood the relationship with karmic forces was slightly different and where stability was not the desired goal either.  I seem to remember that there were three gunas - rajas (as action), tamas (as stability) and sattwa (similar to intelligence) and that the idea was to achieve harmony through the use of sattwa by allowing  rajas to stimulate tamas and tamas to stabilise rajas.  Excessive rajas leads to chaos and excessive tamas leads to inertia.  Continuous harmony was the goal.

We can construct all kinds of systems with varying numbers of categories (or properties) and sub-categories: ying/yang, gunas, elements, ... and why not? They may help with organizing or managing ones thoughts or feelings. It doesn't mean that they necessarily reflect anything   intrinsic in the universe, or any moral truths. What findings would verify or falsify them? At best they are metaphors.   

Goals are intangible and change according to where you are or have been. 
 

[Bramble]

Many years ago whilst attending a retreat at a Buddhist centre I came down with ‘flu and was transferred to a sick room. What I now remember most vividly about the days that followed is the number of people who stuck their heads into the room to tell me how lucky I was to have become ill - although I don’t think any of them lingered in the hope of joining me in my good fortune!

In Buddhist understanding getting ‘flu was the karmic result of a negative action done in the past (almost certainly by some long forgotten creature) which had left a trace on the mind-stream that was currently ‘mine’. According to the ‘law of karma’ such traces increase over time so the ripening of this action as ‘flu now prevented any possibility that in future the same karmic imprint might come to fruition as an even worse experience such as rebirth in hell. This is why I was lucky.

A similar interpretation of infection with Covid-19 would follow the same ‘logic’, even one ending in agony and death. Things could always be worse, and in due course almost certainly will be.

I guess the moral of the tale might be to choose your beliefs with care. They could seriously affect your mental health.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You do understand that it is perfectly possible to consider that 'right and wrong' are entirely social construct

But of course that doesn't cover you or the issues of homosexuality and the wrong behaviour of religionists where right and wrong are apparently absolute.

[ekim]

We can construct all kinds of systems with varying numbers of categories (or properties) and sub-categories: ying/yang, gunas, elements, ... and why not? They may help with organizing or managing ones thoughts or feelings. It doesn't mean that they necessarily reflect anything   intrinsic in the universe, or any moral truths. What findings would verify or falsify them? At best they are metaphors.   

Goals are intangible and change according to where you are or have been.

Yes, that's more or less it, a kind of ancient structure to help with esoteric realisations rather than exoteric reality.  You can see the same 'guna' trinity in astrology with its free, fixed and mutable signs and their suggested impact upon the 4 elements of the psyche.  I believe it is a mistake to try to mix it with modern day science, but good luck to those who try.

[ProfessorDavey]

But of course that doesn't cover you or the issues of homosexuality and the wrong behaviour of religionists where right and wrong are apparently absolute.

Explain please in a manner I can understand and I'll try to respond.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes I would agree that the threat of getting caught is the deterrent, but if you knew that if you got caught parking in a restricted parking area and the fine would be 10p I am pretty sure a lot more people would take the risk of getting caught - so the punishment would also have to be something that would deter the behaviour.

And of course the punishment would not have the same effect on every individual - some would tolerate the punishment better than others - so a very rich person may not be deterred by the risk of a £1000 fine but a poorer person would. Presumably the threat of prison would also affect different people differently.

You do seem rather fixated with issues of money, both in terms of expected payment and fines. I'm not sure this is what we are really considering in terms of right and wrong.

Parking charges are simply one of a range of ways to raise money - so people agree with them, others don't. Some feel the costs are too high. But the decision whether to charge for parking and what level to charge is a purely arbitrary one, not a matter or morality I don't think. I think there is also an issue of justice - I think many people may look to fiddle tax not just because it might provide personal gain, but because there is a feeling of injustice - the little person has to pay their tax, yet the rich guys and gals, and companies get off scot free.

However I was thinking about more specifically moral issues - so in effect whether the threat of punishment is sufficient to prevent someone doing something they know to be wrong but which would provide personal gain for the perpetrator, or mere fun.

And there are countless examples of minor misdemeanours where the chances of being caught are pretty well zero - e.g. petty theft (like the bike example I used upthread) - yet people by and large still don't commit the misdemeanours - why, well I think because they recognise it to be wrong, not because the threat of punishment has any effect.

There is also a really good example where you can compare punishment with rehabilitation - speeding offences. Punishment with a fine and point on the licence is much less effective in preventing repeat offences than going on a speed awareness course (the rehabilitation option).

[flower girl]

Many years ago whilst attending a retreat at a Buddhist centre I came down with ‘flu and was transferred to a sick room. What I now remember most vividly about the days that followed is the number of people who stuck their heads into the room to tell me how lucky I was to have become ill - although I don’t think any of them lingered in the hope of joining me in my good fortune!

In Buddhist understanding getting ‘flu was the karmic result of a negative action done in the past (almost certainly by some long forgotten creature) which had left a trace on the mind-stream that was currently ‘mine’. According to the ‘law of karma’ such traces increase over time so the ripening of this action as ‘flu now prevented any possibility that in future the same karmic imprint might come to fruition as an even worse experience such as rebirth in hell. This is why I was lucky.

A similar interpretation of infection with Covid-19 would follow the same ‘logic’, even one ending in agony and death. Things could always be worse, and in due course almost certainly will be.

I guess the moral of the tale might be to choose your beliefs with care. They could seriously affect your mental health.

Your experience here is so interesting to me. The Evangelical world, from which I've freed myself, would have explained this exact same thing as Satan, which you have somehow, unknowingly, allowed in.  I'm not sure which is more difficult psychologically to endure?  Past ancestors are the fault, or something you have no idea of how is the fault.  Seems to me either one is just as difficult for mental health. 

[Sriram]

You do understand that it is perfectly possible to consider that 'right and wrong' are entirely social construct, yet have clear purpose and meaning, namely purpose and meaning within that societal context.

This is what I consider to be the case. Social animals, including humans, require social rules and customs to allow their social groups to operate effectively. From this requirement flow the concept of right and wrong - behaviours that are acceptable and not acceptable within that social context, typically with methods to embed those social rules within the group, via learning and sanctions or punishments for those that digress. We see this not only in humans but also many other higher animal species that have highly developed social behaviours - most obviously many other primate species.

What about the meaning and purpose - well those relate most proximally to keeping the group together and functioning well. But in the longer range this is all driven by the evolutionary imperative - groups that develop these rules are more successful, more likely to generate offspring that survive and therefore the development of effective societal rules and concepts of right and wrong drive evolutionary advantage.

Note no god required. So until you recognise that you can consider the social constructs of right and wrong to have meaning and purpose within that social construct without the need for god ... well there's not much point in continuing the discussion.

As I have said before, if you take a materialistic view that everything can and should be explained only through material and social means....there is nothing to discuss.

If someone takes the view that there is more to life than meets the eye....and seeks to explain those aspects that science cannot examine...only then, will such metaphysical discussions make sense. 

Its a matter of perception, not of information.

[ProfessorDavey]

As I have said before, if you take a materialistic view that everything can and should be explained only through material and social means....there is nothing to discuss.

If someone takes the view that there is more to life than meets the eye....and seeks to explain those aspects that science cannot examine...only then, will such metaphysical discussions make sense.

You do understand that you don't have to believe in god to recognise the importance of, and be able to engaged in, discussions about philosophy and ethics. So yes there is plenty to discuss providing you aren't confusing metaphysics with supernatural, which I suspect you may be. 

Its a matter of perception, not of information.

Wrong - you need both to understand the world.