I’m pretty sure MrMind would class two teenagers lying to their parents about where they’re going to be and finding somewhere private to have sex as obeying precisely the sort of “natural impulses” referenced in their post. And, yes, agreed, most of the acts involved are entirely instrumental.
I would class that as the same kind of planning demonstrated by a bank robber (although one hopes that successful bank robbers require more sophisticated planning skills).
If you would say neither of those are “natural impulses” because they require instrumental planning, that’s fine, I won’t argue with you… I’m talking about the thing MrMind is talking about, and using their langauge to refer to it, but if y’all can agree on a different word to use I’ll happily use that word instead.
Semantics aside, if there’s an actual disagreement here, can you say more about what it is?
Well, I do agree with you that people are certainly thrown in jail because of their “natural impulses”—not all crimes are like that, but some are.
However the remainder of that paragraph (“Most crimes are natural impulses...”) makes no sense to me at all, I think it’s wrong because you’re completely ignoring instrumentality. Consider a trivial example: running a red light. Are people naturally inclined to do that? No, I don’t think so. Are they explicitly taught to do that? Nope. But is it common? Fairly common, I’d say and there are certainly laws against it.
As I say, I certainly agree that most of the acts people perform, whether criminal or not, are instrumental rather than… um… whatever the alternative is. (Reflexive? Instinctive?)
And yes, I guess you’re right that I’m ignoring that fact… precisely because it seems irrelevant to me.
Similarly, I’m happy to say that eating is a natural impulse. If someone objected that the overwhelming majority of the actions we perform in order to satisfy that impulse are instrumental and deliberate, I would certainly agree that this is true, but would find it strange to conclude that eating was therefore not a natural impulse. Instrumentality of acts just seems entirely beside the point.
Your position makes more sense to me as applied to running red lights, though. My (natural?) inclination is to extend the same reasoning to that case as well but I can definitely appreciate the criticism that at this point I’m just being metaphorical and could just as easily classify anything as “natural,” and I’ll accept that I over-reached with my original claim. People don’t run red lights in the wild.
But murder? Rape? Battery? Nah, in response to certain stimuli these are as natural as eating and having sex. The psychological and social structures we’ve constructed to prevent those stimuli from arising, and to prevent us from responding with those impulses when the stimuli do arise, and to prevent us from implementing those impulses when we do experience them… those structures are wonderful things, and in many contexts they enable us to do much much better than our natural impulses would lead us to do… but to therefore claim that those impulses don’t exist just seems bizarre to me.
I wonder whether what’s underlying the inferential gap here is some unstated assumptions relating to the moral implications of something being a natural impulse. Does it help at all if I say out loud that many of our natural impulses are utterly abhorrent?
I think the word “impulse” is providing more confusion here than light.
I’m happy to say that eating is a natural impulse
Let’s unpack. You have a biologically hardwired desire/instinct to eat. That provides you with a “natural” goal that you may reach through a variety of instrumental ways. Some of them are more acceptable (either from a psychological or from a cultural standpoint), some of them less.
Similarly, there is a desire/instinct to, say, have sex. That, however, doesn’t make rape “natural” as what’s “natural” is desire, not a particular way to satisfy it. There are ways to have sex other than through rape—just as there are ways to eat other than by stealing food and ways to assert dominance other than by punching someone in the face. That’s why distinguishing between the underlying desire and the specific way chosen to satisfy it is important.
many of our natural impulses are utterly abhorrent?
No, I don’t think so. Do you have any particular examples?
So going back to the OP I responded to… when two 14 year olds have sex, is that a specific way, or an underlying desire?
When the OP says it’s common sense not to imprison teenagers “just because of his/her natural impulses”, is it referring to specific ways, or underlying desires?
I’m pretty sure MrMind would class two teenagers lying to their parents about where they’re going to be and finding somewhere private to have sex as obeying precisely the sort of “natural impulses” referenced in their post. And, yes, agreed, most of the acts involved are entirely instrumental.
I would class that as the same kind of planning demonstrated by a bank robber (although one hopes that successful bank robbers require more sophisticated planning skills).
If you would say neither of those are “natural impulses” because they require instrumental planning, that’s fine, I won’t argue with you… I’m talking about the thing MrMind is talking about, and using their langauge to refer to it, but if y’all can agree on a different word to use I’ll happily use that word instead.
Semantics aside, if there’s an actual disagreement here, can you say more about what it is?
Well, I do agree with you that people are certainly thrown in jail because of their “natural impulses”—not all crimes are like that, but some are.
However the remainder of that paragraph (“Most crimes are natural impulses...”) makes no sense to me at all, I think it’s wrong because you’re completely ignoring instrumentality. Consider a trivial example: running a red light. Are people naturally inclined to do that? No, I don’t think so. Are they explicitly taught to do that? Nope. But is it common? Fairly common, I’d say and there are certainly laws against it.
(nods) Thanks for answering my question.
As I say, I certainly agree that most of the acts people perform, whether criminal or not, are instrumental rather than… um… whatever the alternative is. (Reflexive? Instinctive?)
And yes, I guess you’re right that I’m ignoring that fact… precisely because it seems irrelevant to me.
Similarly, I’m happy to say that eating is a natural impulse. If someone objected that the overwhelming majority of the actions we perform in order to satisfy that impulse are instrumental and deliberate, I would certainly agree that this is true, but would find it strange to conclude that eating was therefore not a natural impulse. Instrumentality of acts just seems entirely beside the point.
Your position makes more sense to me as applied to running red lights, though. My (natural?) inclination is to extend the same reasoning to that case as well but I can definitely appreciate the criticism that at this point I’m just being metaphorical and could just as easily classify anything as “natural,” and I’ll accept that I over-reached with my original claim. People don’t run red lights in the wild.
But murder? Rape? Battery? Nah, in response to certain stimuli these are as natural as eating and having sex. The psychological and social structures we’ve constructed to prevent those stimuli from arising, and to prevent us from responding with those impulses when the stimuli do arise, and to prevent us from implementing those impulses when we do experience them… those structures are wonderful things, and in many contexts they enable us to do much much better than our natural impulses would lead us to do… but to therefore claim that those impulses don’t exist just seems bizarre to me.
I wonder whether what’s underlying the inferential gap here is some unstated assumptions relating to the moral implications of something being a natural impulse. Does it help at all if I say out loud that many of our natural impulses are utterly abhorrent?
I think the word “impulse” is providing more confusion here than light.
Let’s unpack. You have a biologically hardwired desire/instinct to eat. That provides you with a “natural” goal that you may reach through a variety of instrumental ways. Some of them are more acceptable (either from a psychological or from a cultural standpoint), some of them less.
Similarly, there is a desire/instinct to, say, have sex. That, however, doesn’t make rape “natural” as what’s “natural” is desire, not a particular way to satisfy it. There are ways to have sex other than through rape—just as there are ways to eat other than by stealing food and ways to assert dominance other than by punching someone in the face. That’s why distinguishing between the underlying desire and the specific way chosen to satisfy it is important.
No, I don’t think so. Do you have any particular examples?
OK.
So going back to the OP I responded to… when two 14 year olds have sex, is that a specific way, or an underlying desire?
When the OP says it’s common sense not to imprison teenagers “just because of his/her natural impulses”, is it referring to specific ways, or underlying desires?