Policy

Naturalism.Org     Center for Naturalism   Applied Naturalism     Philosophy    Spirituality  

 

Social Policy
 

Affirmative Action
Faith in Hiding: Is There a Secular Case for Banning Abortion? 
The Ethics of Empiricism
Maximizing Liberty  
Progressive Implications of Naturalism     

Background on Naturalism  
Criminal Justice and Deviance   
Social and Economic Justice  
Proposals 
 

   

Background on Naturalism

By providing a unified picture of ourselves embedded in nature, culture, and biology, inclusive naturalism serves as the basis for enlightened social policies.  Currently, the commonly accepted supernaturalistic view of ourselves as having contra-causal free will prevents understanding the causes behind human behavior, while setting up individuals for unlimited recrimination and rewards.  The widespread idea that persons are causally privileged over everything else in nature - that they are uncaused first causes - deflects attention from environmental and biological conditions which shape personality and behavior, thus retarding progress towards a more compassionate, less punitive culture. The highly skewed distribution of resources based on the notion of the self-made self, that those who succeed ultimately deserve their success since they possess some sort of metaphysical originative merit, is another consequence of the free will myth. Philosopher John Rawls pointed out years ago that no one deserves the talents and station in life they are born into; it's all a matter of luck (see note 1). This insight is the basis for the egalitarian political philosophy expressed in A Theory of Justice and later works.

A naturalistic understanding of ourselves has major social implications centered on 1) criminal justice and deviance and 2) social and economic justice. In what follows, the harmful consequences of the myth of libertarian, contra-causal free will for social policy are discussed, followed by the benefits of replacing that myth with inclusive naturalism.

 

Criminal Justice and Deviance

 Negatives stemming from the free will myth:

- Retributive attitudes supporting harsh criminal sanctions. If offenders are seen as the ultimate source of their deviance (e.g., addiction) and criminality, then they are deemed deserving of punishment on the grounds that they could have overcome their environmental and biological circumstances, but simply chose not to do so. This sense of strong, ultimate desert is used to justify capital punishment and punitive incarceration over and above that necessary for rehabilitation or deterrence. Such punishment reinforces and perpetuates violence and maladaptive behavior, leaving in its wake vast and unnecessary suffering.
 

- Ineffective social policy. To the extent criminality and harmful deviance are understood to arise from individuals' undetermined choices, their true social and economic causes will go unaddressed. The myth of libertarian freedom essentially lets us off the hook from having to thoroughly investigate and remedy the root causes of dysfunction, and so the cycle of crime and punitive response repeats indefinitely. Free will is the bottom line excuse and justification for laissez faire and ineffective social policies which guarantee high levels of criminality and dysfunction.

Positives stemming from inclusive naturalism:

- Softening of retributive attitudes. Understanding that people don't create themselves, but instead are fully included in the causal matrix of environmental and biological conditions, undercuts retributive blaming focused on the person. This should help reduce the demand for capital punishment and harsh prison conditions. The aims of criminal justice might shift from the retributive imposition of just deserts to public safety, rehabilitation, victim restoration and reconciliation, and the prevention of recidivism (see note 2 and the Criminal Justice page).


- Enlightened social policy. Inclusive naturalism leads to the conclusion that an individual's development and behavior are fully a function of biological and social conditions, in which case the desire for a better, less punitive society should lead us to address these conditions. No longer will the free will myth excuse inaction on the grounds that people willfully choose their criminality, addiction, etc. Moral distinctions will still be made, but moralistic responses will be lessened in favor of interventions (e.g., economic and social investment and reform) which actually alleviate the causes of criminality.
 

- Policy initiatives:  see proposal for Council on Crime and Causality.

 


 Social and economic justice

 Negatives stemming from the free will myth:

- Economic and social inequality. The widespread assumption of libertarian freedom, which states that an individual is at bottom self-made, works to justify and excuse huge differences in material well-being and social advantages. Those that fail economically, on this understanding, fail because of a willful refusal to apply themselves or follow the rules. Since it was their bottom-line choice not to get ahead, they deserve their misery. Likewise, those that succeed deserve their riches, however excessive or disproportionate, since they made themselves who they are. The huge inequalities between rich and poor are tolerated partially because they are thought to reflect differences in metaphysical merit derived from the differential exercise of free will.
 

- Ineffective social policy. To the extent that economic and social inequality are believed to result from human choices unaffected by surrounding conditions (the definition of libertarian freedom), such inequality will be perceived as the natural outcome of self-chosen individual differences, not anything that could or should be remedied by social policy. Social programs and income redistribution, therefore, will be only thought capable of operating around the margins of what is essentially up to human free will. The free will assumption, therefore, disempowers and defeats interventions to reduce inequality in advance by implying they cannot be effective, or that they somehow infringe our right to ultimate self-determination. (Of course if we really had libertarian free will, our self-determination couldn't be infringed upon.)

Positives stemming from inclusive naturalism:

- The end of metaphysical merit. Inclusive naturalism shows that an individual's economic and social success is entirely a function of family status, innate talents, and numerous other environmental and biological factors, not free will (see Rawls quote below, note 1). Successful individuals can no longer claim that their riches are deserved in the deep, metaphysical sense of having created themselves and their success ex nihilo. Nor can those who end up on the bottom be blamed for their failure on the grounds they could have chosen otherwise, given the circumstances that obtained. Social and economic inequality will be understood as the luck of the draw, not a reflection of metaphysical merit. This will undercut justifications for inequality based on the notions of deserved entitlement and deserved failure.
 

- Egalitarian social policy. If success and failure come to be understood as entirely a matter of environmental and biological conditions, not a reflection of self-created will, then social and economic inequalities can no longer be defended on the grounds that they are somehow deserved. This will undercut support for laissez-faire social policies that permit huge discrepancies in wealth and opportunity, and increase support for interventions that improve both opportunities and outcomes for the disadvantaged. Although incentives must still exist to encourage hard work and risk-taking, they need not result in a grossly skewed distribution of goods. Inclusive naturalism will shift the justification for having a reasonable standard of living from what's deserved to what's needed to avoid suffering.

Notes:

(1) "It seems to be one of the fixed points of our considered judgments that no one deserves his place in the distribution of native endowments, any more than one deserves one's initial starting place in society. The assertion that a man deserves the superior character that enables him to make the effort to cultivate his abilities is equally problematic; for his character depends in large part upon fortunate family and social circumstances for which he can claim no credit. The notion of desert seems not to apply to these cases" (Rawls, p. 104 A Theory of Justice).

(2) See Derk Pereboom's book, Living Without Free Will, Ted Honderich's book, How Free Are You?, and Paul Breer's book, The Spontaneous Self, for arguments in favor of policy change in the light of inclusive naturalism, especially in criminal justice. See Honderich's website for brief version of Pereboom's radical thesis on dismantling institutions of punishment. Note, however, that belief in naturalism is no guarantee of softer attitudes on criminal justice, desert, and blame. See, for instance, my review of Michael Moore's book, Placing Blame, in which he defends retributive justice despite his acknowledgement that we don't have libertarian freedom, and my exchange with David Hill on What Justifies Retribution, Precisely?.
 

[back to Center for Naturalism]

 

___________________________________________________________

 

 

 

Proposals

 

Council on Crime and Causality        Conference on Naturalism

 

- Proposal -

 Council on Crime and Causality

Summary:  Punitive and ineffective criminal justice policies find attitudinal support in the belief in free will, the idea that offenders are essentially self-made and therefore deserving of harsh punishments, including death.  Changing beliefs about free will can soften punitive attitudes and build support for addressing the actual causes of crime.  To change beliefs about free will and build support for criminal justice reform, it is proposed that public education on causality and crime be undertaken by a credible group of multi-disciplinary experts.

 

The Problem: Punitive and Ineffective Criminal Justice Polices

In the last 30 years, the American criminal justice system has undergone a retrenchment in rehabilitative programs for offenders, reductions in inmate amenities, and a corresponding increase in sanctions such as maximum security units, solitary confinement and physical restraints, and the denial of basic privileges such as exercise, books, and television.  Criminal sanctions on juveniles have become more severe, even as juvenile crime has declined.  “3 strike” laws have been passed in many states that permit sentences of up to life for simple theft.

The highly punitive prison environment typical in most states has, unsurprisingly, produced a more alienated, unskilled, and violent inmate population with a greater potential for recidivism and re-incarceration.  Since many offenders will at some point return to their original neighborhoods, harsh prison policies may ultimately increase violence and insecurity among populations they were ostensibly designed to protect.

During the 80’s and 90’s, voter support of get-tough criminal justice coincided with declining enthusiasm for public programs designed to address unequal opportunities in access to housing, education, job training, child care, and other necessities strongly associated with non-criminal success in life.  The vision of a “Great Society” in which government would play a central role in equalizing opportunity has been largely usurped by a narrower, private sector philosophy in which individuals sink or swim in competitive market economies without much government assistance.  Efforts to better the lot of those born into disadvantaged circumstances are more likely to be dismissed as paternalistic infringements on a person’s right (and obligation) to be a self-sufficient self-starter instead of praised as altruistic attempts to level the playing field.

 

Attitudinal Support for Punitive Policies: Belief in Free Will

Driving these trends is the ideology of Western radical individualism, which holds that persons are essentially self-made, and that therefore they deserve, in some deep sense, to pay for their mistakes.  Behind this ideology is a widespread if usually unarticulated assumption about causality, namely that human beings are in some crucial respect the uncaused first causes of their behavior.  This special capacity is ordinarily called, and thought of as, free will. 

The belief in human causal exceptionalism has two significant implications for criminal justice policy.  First, since criminality is ultimately up to the individual, then no matter what policies are enacted, criminality will still emerge.  On this view, crime ultimately cannot be controlled, so the incentive to undertake interventions is weakened.  The belief that individuals’ free will, not particular social and biological conditions, ultimately accounts for crime, relieves us of responsibility for addressing the actual causes of criminality and social dysfunction.   Second, since individuals bear originative responsibility for their crimes – they weren’t entirely caused to behave the way they did – they deeply, metaphysically deserve to suffer for their offenses.  Such a view understands retribution as an essential component of criminal justice, making capital punishment and harsh prison conditions, including rape, beatings, sensory deprivation, lack of exercise, education, or any civilized amenities, all perfectly justifiable.   It is no surprise that retributive justice, combined with the lack of attention to the formative conditions of crime, shows little prospect of substantially improving public safety or reforming offenders.

 

Solution: Public Education on Causality and Human Behavior

If belief in free will underpins punitive and ineffective criminal justice policies and leads us to ignore criminogenic factors, then dispelling this belief should help foster attitudes supportive of criminal justice reform and social policies that successfully address the causes of crime and recidivism.  Once individuals are understood not to be the ultimate, self-originating sources of their behavior, but rather the products of interacting environmental and biological conditions, then retributive motives for punishment will lose their primary justification.  As we seek to prevent crime, this naturalistic understanding of the self will shift attention from a narrow focus on the offender to the surroundings which created him.  Since punitive criminal justice practices are themselves a major contributor to violent crime and recidivism, changing beliefs about free will to reduce support for such practices becomes a significant component of effective crime prevention. 

 

Current Efforts

Because challenging free will poses a threat to traditional, strongly held concepts of human agency, it is likely to trigger resistance in many quarters.  Free will is widely thought necessary to ground moral and criminal responsibility, while lack of free will is often associated with such things as fatalism, passivity, loss of personal efficacy, oppressive predictability, and the impossibility of individuality and novelty.  Fortunately, work has recently emerged in philosophy, social science, psychology, and criminal justice studies which shows that a naturalistic, causal view of ourselves is not only true, but is compatible with our values and our sense of personal efficacy (e.g., see the Resources page at Naturalism.Org, ). Some of this work relates directly to criminal justice issues, and some writers have argued that significant policy changes in the light of naturalism are warranted, e.g., ending capital punishment and alleviating unnecessarily harsh prison conditions.  The intellectual and empirical groundwork for changing attitudes about free will and criminal justice is, therefore, well begun, although not yet widely known.

 

Proposal:  Council on Crime and Causality

 A coordinated campaign of research, publication, and educational outreach is needed to increase public awareness of these developments and thus bring about change in attitudes related to criminal justice and social policy.  For a naturalistic, fully causal conception of ourselves to take hold and for its implications to become clear, a credible group of multi-disciplinary experts must champion this conception in the context of criminal justice and related concerns, such as substance abuse, community development, and welfare policy.  Although experts in relevant fields are producing significant contributions, there exists no organizational support to coordinate these efforts and maximize their impact, for instance via conferences, joint publications, and policy papers.  It is proposed, therefore, to fund a Council on Crime and Causality (CCC) which would 1) recruit experts who take a fully naturalistic view of human behavior and who wish to change criminal justice and related social policies in a less punitive, more effective direction,  2) coordinate their efforts by means of developing a common agenda with clearly articulated goals related to research, public education, and policy advocacy on naturalism and criminal justice, 3) fulfill this agenda by means of publications, conferences and other educational outreach efforts, with the result that beliefs about causality and crime become more supportive of criminal justice reform.

 Under this proposal the Council would:

·        Develop an initial project description for review by potential recruits.

·        Review literature to develop list of candidates for recruitment.

·        Contact and recruit Council participants.

·        Develop consensus statement on Council mission and goals.

·        Develop and implement an agenda, e.g., 1, 2, and 5 year plans for research, writing, publication, conferences, and other educational outreach.

·        Monitor and report on project implementation, agenda fulfillment, and Council impact on public awareness and policy change. 

***************
 

Naturalism.Org     Center for Naturalism   Applied Naturalism     Philosophy    Spirituality