Skinner and Freud admit we have
choices, they just say those choices
occur for particular reasons (i.e.
determining causes), not randomly or for
no reason at all.

Skinner doesn't say we should blame
others or society for our problems; he
says we should abandon the concept of
blame altogether. Once we do that, we
can try to condition behaviors which will
make individuals and society functional
and happy, instead of making sure
wrongdoers get what's coming to them.

People don't simply choose to break
dysfunctional cycles for no reason.
Someone or something influences them
(a social worker, a teacher who takes an
interest in them), etc. Nobody wakes up
one day and shouts "I freely choose to be
a crack-addicted prostitute!" or "I freely
choose to be an alcoholic wife-beater".
Rather, people act according to the input
from early childhood role models,
traumatic experiences and so on. People
adapt the best they know how to their
environment. Certain environmental
stimuli produce anit-social deviants.
Other stimuli produces well-adjusted,
functional happy people.

Why is it the case that most abusers were
themselves abused? Why are those from
poor famlilies and single parent families
more likley to abuse drugs and alcohol,
have relationship problems or commit
crimes? Again, if these were free choices,
would you expect these patterns to exist?

To get back to the Compatiblism topic,
Determinists would say that
Compatibliism (Soft-determinism) is
trying to have it's cake and eat it too, admit
that behavior is determined by causes but
hold onto antiquated beliefs in morality,
including the ability to blame people for
their actions. They would say that one of
these beliefs has to go, because they are
not compatible. Determinists, of course,
want to jetison moral responsibility.

Libertarians agree that one of the
compatiblist's beliefs has got to go, but
think that the belief that behavior is
determined which should be abandoned.

Prof. Borrowdale
borrowdalej@lanecc.edu