A question of morality

[Scaramouche]

Ok, here's something rather funny I found on the blog of a user from this forum. There was some guy who caught his girlfriend shagging some other guy, in his very own bed. Nasty. He set up a website with his naughty pictures of his ex-girlfriend, and spread word on a couple of social networking websites, and now it's a big deal, word spreading around and all. So, the questions are:

1. Is the guy entitled to feel hurt about the betrayal?

2. Is it reasonable and acceptable, when someone harms us or betrays us, to act against them in turn?

3. Do you believe people of low moral character (eg. cheaters) can change for the better, with or without negative reinforcement guiding their behaviour?

[karpeth]

yes, yes with.

Sociology, in three words.

[Scaramouche]

with.

So you believe people of low moral character can change for the better if guided by negative reinforcement? What sorts of behaviour modification would you use? A website full of naughty pictures, a stick, uncomplimentary gossip...?

[karpeth]

with.

So you believe people of low moral character can change for the better if guided by negative reinforcement?

Simple behavioral psychology. They might repress it and become disturbed, though...

[Scaramouche]

with.

So you believe people of low moral character can change for the better if guided by negative reinforcement?

Simple behavioral psychology. They might repress it and become disturbed, though...

If someone is a sleazy gimp anyway, does it matter if it makes them disturbed, if it also curbs their negative behaviours?

[Kamino Neko]

1. Is the guy entitled to feel hurt about the betrayal?

Yes. This one isn't even a question. He is, without a doubt entitled to be hurt, and feel betrayed. (Unless, of course, they were open, and he's just hurt now that it's actually been put into practise. Then he's a petty little brat. (I say as someone who's been that brat.))

2. Is it reasonable and acceptable, when someone harms us or betrays us, to act against them in turn?

Only in a proportionate, reasonable response, to stop them, and make them realize (if they don't already), how they've harmed us. This isn't that.

3. Do you believe people of low moral character (eg. cheaters) can change for the better, with or without negative reinforcement guiding their behaviour?

Yes. People can, and do, change. But negative reenforcement, when used on its own, rather than in tandem with positive reenforcement of wanted behaviours, is a lousy way to help effect change in the unwilling. Any change is likely to be short-term, once the negative stimulus ends, and that's assuming it actually happens, rather than their becoming hardened against change. Especially indiscriminate 'reenforcement' like this - this is going to dog her a long time, no matter what her behaviour's like. And I don't believe for a minute he intends this as 'negative reenforcement' - it's revenge, plain and simple.

This is, of course, my ideal, that I don't always stick to, but those moments of hypocrisy are my bad, not on the person to whom I'm reacting, and something I'm working on.

[karpeth]

that depends on your view on humans, and how you value others.

[Scaramouche]

2. Is it reasonable and acceptable, when someone harms us or betrays us, to act against them in turn?

Only in a proportionate, reasonable response, to stop them, and make them realize (if they don't already), how they've harmed us. This isn't that.

How do you determine what is an acceptable proportion? Is it up to you, as a non-involved party, to decide how much the victim was hurt, and how much the perpetrator should pay?

3. Do you believe people of low moral character (eg. cheaters) can change for the better, with or without negative reinforcement guiding their behaviour?

Yes. People can, and do, change.

I believe most cheaters cheat more than once. Many types of criminals repeat their offences; the lowest rate of recidivism being for those who face the harshest negative consequences for their actions.

But negative reenforcement, when used on its own, rather than in tandem with positive reenforcement of wanted behaviours, is a lousy way to help effect change in the unwilling. Any change is likely to be short-term, once the negative stimulus ends, and that's assuming it actually happens, rather than their becoming hardened against change.

Although my personal preference is that humans change due to a conscious decision to improve themselves, the state of the human world after so many hundreds of millennia indicates that it rarely occurs. On the other hand, negative reinforcement has demonstratably positive results even in the long term, which is why murderers (having very harsh consequences for their actions) tend to have a very low rate of recidivism.

Especially indiscriminate 'reenforcement' like this - this is going to dog her a long time, no matter what her behaviour's like.

What's indiscriminate about it? He's targeting only one specific person.

And I don't believe for a minute he intends this as 'negative reenforcement' - it's revenge, plain and simple.

My bet is he doesn't even know the term "negative reinforcement". But that doesn't change the fact that it is actually negative reinforcement. Whether he intended that or not makes no difference to the fact that it's negative reinforcement.

[Scaramouche]

Coincidentally, the movie Unfaithful is on right now. That Diane Lane is one good looking woman.

[Kamino Neko]

On the other hand, negative reinforcement has demonstratably positive results even in the long term, which is why murderers (having very harsh consequences for their actions) tend to have a very low rate of recidivism.

No, murderers have low recidivism because of the nature of their crimes - few murderers just kill for the sake of killing - most murderers kill because of circumstances. Crimes of passion, or to profit from a situation they find themselves in, or to increase their chances of committing a different crime without being caught.

Rarely will they find themselves in the same situation that they were in when they felt compelled to kill.

And those that do, will kill again.

Sex crimes have some of the highest recidivism rates - and sex criminals, especially those who target children, face incredibly harsh penalties. Not just legal, but extra-legal.

And, of course, the biggest reason recidivism rates are so high to begin with is the fact that so much of the penal system is entirely negative reenforcement - no attempts at actually improving the prisoners, just punishing them for their crimes. Because helping them to actually be productive members of society is 'going soft on them'. Pfeh.

What's indiscriminate about it? He's targeting only one specific person.

I answered that question in the second half of the sentence - it's not going to stop. No matter what she does, no matter where she goes, this will always be there.

Negative reenforcement only works at all if it's directly targeted - bad things happen when the subject does bad things.

Bad things happening, even if they've done something good, or neutral completely obliterates what little good it can do. The stimulus becomes ineffective background noise which can no longer effect them, or worse, something to act out against.

My bet is he doesn't even know the term "negative reinforcement". But that doesn't change the fact that it is actually negative reinforcement. Whether he intended that or not makes no difference to the fact that it's negative reinforcement.

Which is completely beside the point - he's still just being an even bigger asshole than she was.

And being an asshole, even if the other person was an asshole first, still makes a person an asshole.

[Scaramouche]

On the other hand, negative reinforcement has demonstratably positive results even in the long term, which is why murderers (having very harsh consequences for their actions) tend to have a very low rate of recidivism.

No, murderers have low recidivism because of the nature of their crimes - few murderers just kill for the sake of killing - most murderers kill because of circumstances. Crimes of passion, or to profit from a situation they find themselves in, or to increase their chances of committing a different crime without being caught.

If a person is a drug-dealing scumbag who killed someone in his business, he may or may not kill again. If a murderer is the sort of person who breaks under pressure, he may or may not kill again. Indeed if he has a demonstrated capacity to fly off the handle, and a demonstrated capacity to murder, he's a high risk of a repeat offence.

Either way, the fact remains that homicide involves a harsh penalty and a low rate of recidivism. You put that uniform correlation down to the nature of the crime, while arguing that the natgure of the crime is due to a non-uniform factor (circumstances, or three totally difference motives in your examples).

Rarely will they find themselves in the same situation that they were in when they felt compelled to kill.

Whether they felt compelled to kill is another matter we can skip as irrelevant for now.

However, what we do know, and can use in this discussion, is that those involved in crimes associated with high rates of recidivism (such as assault and burglary) tend to often be associated with murder. While the homicide portion may have a low rate of recidivism, the assault and burglaries tend to get out there and do it again, indicating that they do tend to find themselves in the same circimstances repeatedly.

And those that do, will kill again.

So a cheater will cheat again if in a relationship again?

Sex crimes have some of the highest recidivism rates - and sex criminals, especially those who target children, face incredibly harsh penalties. Not just legal, but extra-legal.

Sex crimes involve very low rates of recidivism, but those re-arrested tend to have a higher proportion of offending again for the same sort of crime:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/rsorp94.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/rsorp94pr.htm

And, of course, the biggest reason recidivism rates are so high to begin with is the fact that so much of the penal system is entirely negative reenforcement - no attempts at actually improving the prisoners, just punishing them for their crimes. Because helping them to actually be productive members of society is 'going soft on them'. Pfeh.

So prisons are to blame for crime? Was there no crime before we had prisons? No rape, murder, child abuse?

Rehabilitation is not something I favour, but that can be discussed in another thread.

What's indiscriminate about it? He's targeting only one specific person.

I answered that question in the second half of the sentence - it's not going to stop. No matter what she does, no matter where she goes, this will always be there.

That doesn't make it indiscriminate. That makes it enduring. It's still specifically targeting one individual. I would hope quite effectively too. As for this issue haunting her for years to come, well, that isn't a negative in my opinion. It's the appropriate result.

Negative reenforcement only works at all if it's directly targeted - bad things happen when the subject does bad things.

She did something bad, and something bad is happening to her. Directly to her.

Bad things happening, even if they've done something good, or neutral completely obliterates what little good it can do. The stimulus becomes ineffective background noise which can no longer effect them, or worse, something to act out against.

But she didn't do something good. She did something bad. And is suffering negative reinforcement as a direct result. If you are suggesting that negative reinforcement will become ineffective, why did you previously say it will haunt her for years to come?

My bet is he doesn't even know the term "negative reinforcement". But that doesn't change the fact that it is actually negative reinforcement. Whether he intended that or not makes no difference to the fact that it's negative reinforcement.

Which is completely beside the point - he's still just being an even bigger asshole than she was.

That makes no sense. How is that judgement qualified, quantified, justified, et cetera?

And being an asshole, even if the other person was an asshole first, still makes a person an asshole.

Doesn't matter. If someone does something bad to you (rapes you, stabs you, invades your home, whatever), then nasty arsehole actions in response are entirely fine, good, and proper.

[Kamino Neko]

Either way, the fact remains that homicide involves a harsh penalty and a low rate of recidivism.

Which are completely unrelated to each other. Correlation does not equal causation.

So a cheater will cheat again if in a relationship again?

If not deal with in a way that will actually change their attitudes, yes. What that will be will change from person to person, depending on their reason for cheating.

But unless they've got an unfulfilled exhibitionism fetish, posting their nude pictures on the internet won't accomplish that.

So prisons are to blame for crime? Was there no crime before we had prisons? No rape, murder, child abuse?

The Emerald City's that way, Strawman.

Crime will happen. Even habitual criminals will happen.

But not nearly at the rate they do if the penal system was set up in a sane way, and non penal solutions to crime - poverty alleviation, etc - were pursued.

But she didn't do something good.

She will. She will also do neutral things. And she'll STILL be receiving the same negative stimulus.

It has become unconnected to her actions. It has ceased to be negative reenforcement, and become negative acts against her for their own right.

She did something bad. And is suffering negative reinforcement as a direct result. If you are suggesting that negative reinforcement will become ineffective, why did you previously say it will haunt her for years to come?

Because it will. Which is why it will become ineffective - the minute it stops being negative stimulus in reaction to a negative action, it stops being effective negative reenforcement. At best it becomes 'shit that happens to me' which will fail to effect their actions.

That makes no sense. How is that judgement qualified, quantified, justified, et cetera?

It's simple - compare the amount of harm done to the subject and length of punishment. It's not a quadratic equation, here, it's a simple comparison.

You tell me I have a stupid haircut, and I punch you in the face? I've overreacted. The harm (minor insult vs physical injury) is out of proportion.

I hide your book, you throw mine in the trash? You've overreacted. The length of time (however long it takes for me to find it, or you to tell me where you put it vs permanent) is out of proportion.

She cheated, he posted her nude pictures on the internet? He's overreacted. The harm (betrayal of trust vs betrayal of trust plus public humiliation) and the length of time (the time it takes him to get over her, vs as long as those pictures exist on the internet, plus the length of the memories of the people who've seen them) are both out of proportion.

Doesn't matter. If someone does something bad to you (rapes you, stabs you, invades your home, whatever), then nasty arsehole actions in response are entirely fine, good, and proper.

'An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.' (Dr Martin Luthor King, jr)

Not only does it fail to make the other person better, it makes you worse.

That said, I'm done with this conversation.

The minute you brought out the strawman, you ended any possibility of real debate.

So it is over.

[Scaramouche]

Either way, the fact remains that homicide involves a harsh penalty and a low rate of recidivism.

Which are completely unrelated to each other. Correlation does not equal causation.

I think you misunderstand the words "correlation" and "unrelated". A correlation is a relation. However, if you wish to suggest that, in opposition to all the reports regarding types of crimes and recidivism, there's no relationship between types of crime and recidivism, be my guest.

So a cheater will cheat again if in a relationship again?

If not deal with in a way that will actually change their attitudes, yes. What that will be will change from person to person, depending on their reason for cheating.

You seem to be changing your mind a lot. First they will get better, or won't repeat it. Then they'll cheat again if in a relationship again, unless they change their attitude. Which is the entire point of the discussion of negative reinforcement.

But unless they've got an unfulfilled exhibitionism fetish, posting their nude pictures on the internet won't accomplish that.

Well, it was done by someone other than the cheater.

So prisons are to blame for crime? Was there no crime before we had prisons? No rape, murder, child abuse?

The Emerald City's that way, Strawman.

Your words: "And, of course, the biggest reason recidivism rates are so high to begin with is the fact that so much of the penal system is entirely negative reenforcement ". You blamed those crimes on the negative reinforcement provided by prisons. My question in response was not a straw man argument. Leaping to the defence of blurting out "Datz a logical fallacy!" only works if it actually is one.

Crime will happen. Even habitual criminals will happen.

And then we have behaviour modification through punishment...

But not nearly at the rate they do if the penal system was set up in a sane way, and non penal solutions to crime - poverty alleviation, etc - were pursued.

Well, I am no fan of the current legal and penal systems, but giving poor people money doesn't really seem to me a great way to stop people hurting each other.

But she didn't do something good.

She will. She will also do neutral things. And she'll STILL be receiving the same negative stimulus.

I won't indulge in predicting drastic changes in character in her future. I'll stick with what we know: she did something bad, harmed someone, and he has reacted in a way which probably makes him feel a little better.

It has become unconnected to her actions. It has ceased to be negative reenforcement, and become negative acts against her for their own right.

I'm pretty sure it's connected very strongly with her actions, given that the webpage in question says right at the top what it's all about. She cheated, so the guy is trying to humiliate her. That seems to be an ouchy in response to her boo-boo.

She did something bad. And is suffering negative reinforcement as a direct result. If you are suggesting that negative reinforcement will become ineffective, why did you previously say it will haunt her for years to come?

Because it will. Which is why it will become ineffective - the minute it stops being negative stimulus in reaction to a negative action, it stops being effective negative reenforcement. At best it becomes 'shit that happens to me' which will fail to effect their actions.

So you're saying it will cease to have a negative effect?

That makes no sense. How is that judgement qualified, quantified, justified, et cetera?

It's simple - compare the amount of harm done to the subject and length of punishment. It's not a quadratic equation, here, it's a simple comparison.

Oh, all right then. How are you comparing them? How exactly does her humiliation compare to whatever the effects were on the guy?

You tell me I have a stupid haircut, and I punch you in the face? I've overreacted. The harm (minor insult vs physical injury) is out of proportion.

See, there's an argument which makes no sense.

Jane steals an apple from Fred. Fred steals three oranges from Jane in response. You say "If Jane says Fred's haircut is stupid and Fred lays waste to Jane's place with nuclear weapons, it's out or proportion, therefore Fred's response of stealing three oranges was wrong".

Do you understand why your answer made no sense?

I hide your book, you throw mine in the trash? You've overreacted. The length of time (however long it takes for me to find it, or you to tell me where you put it vs permanent) is out of proportion.

1. A book in the trash isn't permanent.

2. I think throing the book in the trash is a perfect response. So why is your opinion or a valid response any better?

She cheated, he posted her nude pictures on the internet? He's overreacted. The harm (betrayal of trust vs betrayal of trust plus public humiliation) and the length of time (the time it takes him to get over her, vs as long as those pictures exist on the internet, plus the length of the memories of the people who've seen them) are both out of proportion.

I don't see how the pictures thing is an overreaction at all. If anything, it's rather mild. Would you consider it more appropriate if the ex-boyfriend seduced her next boyfriend? As for your attempts to quantify the harm done by both parties, remember that he will carry that betrayal with him the rest of his life. It will have a life-long effect, and may affect every future relationship he has, therefore it may affect every other person with whom he has an intimate relationship. As for her, well, those pictures will affect primarily people she doesn't know, people she'll never meet.

Doesn't matter. If someone does something bad to you (rapes you, stabs you, invades your home, whatever), then nasty arsehole actions in response are entirely fine, good, and proper.

'An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.' (Dr Martin Luthor King, jr)

Failing to respond to an attack ensures the attacker will do it again. (Me.)

Not only does it fail to make the other person better, it makes you worse.

We've covered this. Negative reinforcement can work. It may indeed make her better. Although I doubt it. Cheaters tend to repeat.

That said, I'm done with this conversation.
The minute you brought out the strawman, you ended any possibility of real debate.
So it is over.

Again, blurting out "Straw man!" only matters if it was one. It wasn't. On the other hand, resorting to such comments in place of rational responses is akin to bringing out the Hitler card.

[midgetshrimp]

Two wrongs don't make a right... blah blah blah... shouldn't have done it... blah blah blah... piss in her coffee instead.

[Asaryu]

1. Is the guy entitled to feel hurt about the betrayal?

Yes. I believe in validating feelings, even if you can't rationalise them. You have always got a right to your emotions. It is when you push them on to other people (like KN said, if he was in an open relationship and got jealous, then it's his problem) that they become unacceptable.

2. Is it reasonable and acceptable, when someone harms us or betrays us, to act against them in turn?

It can be, however if this is a question of morality, then I would have to say no. I think the best thing is to address the underlying issues and simply get over it. I don't believe retribution is ever the answer, and I don't think that something hurtful and destructive will ever result in anything but misery for everyone. If you seek to hurt another person, no matter what they have done, then you have to ask yourself if you're any better. If they are cheating on you (for instance), then there may have been an issue with the relationship, one that they attempted to address but that you were oblivious to, and can you blame them for doing it? Isn't it possible to chalk it to a poor experience between two people and simply move on?

3. Do you believe people of low moral character (eg. cheaters) can change for the better, with or without negative reinforcement guiding their behaviour?

While I have never been cheated on (to my knowledge) I have done the cheating once. I do not think I am of low moral character, and I don't think that moral character can be considered a scale on which you can put people. There is right and wrong within the parameters of the relationship in which you are involved. The cheating I did was wrong to me, but not to my partner...but I didn't know he was fine with it and so I was working under the assumption he would not be. So in my mind, if not his, I did wrong.

On the other hand, I have an ex-friend who would say I helped her then-partner cheat on her. And to that I would say she is wrong. She agreed to an open-relationship, and when that was taken advantage of with me, decided that she wasn't okay with it after all and changed the rules in retrospect. Part of the reason I did it was to teach her this rather valuable lesson.

I think that if someone's needs are being met within their relationship, then there will be no untoward behaviour. If their needs are not being met, then it is inevitable that they will seek out a satisfying experience. I have experienced this first hand on more than one occasion. The first time I cheated, other times I have engaged in negotiations with my partner as to what is acceptable. Once, I broke up with them in order to get my needs met elsewhere as they were unable to do, or let me do, what was necessary. The other, more recent time, we changed the relationship to accommodate both parties and I now am having my needs met every which way.

It is hard to look at a cheating partner and say "The reason for this lies in a failure of our relationship, not in a failure of your moral character". And if your partner would cheat, while it is a vile act of betrayal and should be treated as such, it also indicates that there was an inability to communicate needs and desires between the two of you...and that issue should be given the weight it deserves without falling back on the 'he/she was just a bastard' mentality.