Post by rollerk on Sept 22, 2017 19:42:58 GMT
Skinner believed that the concept of "free will" was an illusion, and that we needed to put it aside in order to achieve greatness as a society. Initially, the general North American population will find Skinner's views on human freedom abhorrent, I am no different. Supposing that we could control an individual's environment as a method of controlling the development of the individual, we would, indeed, lessen the individual's agency. North American ideology and specifically, U.S. ideology is based in the belief that individuals have the freedom of will needed to achieve greatness within themselves. All we need to do is exercise this freedom and accept personal responsibility for our successes or failures and move forward toward greatness. While Skinner was obviously wrong in his supposition that free will is an illusion and that the environment is completely responsible for the development of the individual, there is an element to his thoughts on free will that ought to be explored.
While not in agreement, I completely understand Skinner's viewpoint on human freedom. Why is it so important to acknowledge the existence of human freedom? While it is obvious that free will is not an illusion, "free will" is a concept that has root in morality and so, is rooted in spirituality. We believe we are entitled to free will. We believe that respecting human freedom is a matter of right and wrong, a violation of which is considered fundamentally wrong. Therefore, the concept of free will is moral. Innate morality, however, must have it's root in spirituality. How can we argue the evolution of a moral being? Surely, a moral society could have evolved. A moral society is necessary to peace and happiness, the rejection of morals the root of anarchy. But, a moral being? The mere existence of a moral being necessitates the existence of a moral higher power who has imbued humanity with these intrinsic morals. How else can we explain an expressed belief in the fundamental existence of right and wrong not only as a tool in facilitating a peaceful society but as an inborn human characteristic? Scientists argue a complete separation from spirituality and so, should also reject the concept of free will as a moral right just as Skinner did. The acknowledgement of free will as a human right is the acknowledgement of a moral higher power. United States ideology is founded in a spiritual belief in a higher power, specifically, God. Therefore, they are in line with their values to reject the thought that free will is an illusion in favour of the belief that it is, in fact, an innate human right. However, to separate this spiritual element from the existence and reverence we have of human free will, is inconsistent.
Ultimately, the neglect of the human mind in connection with response to stimuli is what must discredits Skinner's behaviourism theories rather than his rejection of the ideology of free will. Rejection of this idea simply because of Skinner's viewpoint on free will, necessitates the acknowledgement of a moral higher power.
The obsession that the scientific community has with rejecting and isolating science from spirituality is conflicting as science as a whole, does not reject the existence of intrinsic human morals. All this to say that Skinner's theories on free will were consistent with his belief in a separation of spirituality from science. Therefore, the rejection of the importance of free will along with embracing the use of environment to control the development of individuals is the ideal of a non-moralistic society.
While not in agreement, I completely understand Skinner's viewpoint on human freedom. Why is it so important to acknowledge the existence of human freedom? While it is obvious that free will is not an illusion, "free will" is a concept that has root in morality and so, is rooted in spirituality. We believe we are entitled to free will. We believe that respecting human freedom is a matter of right and wrong, a violation of which is considered fundamentally wrong. Therefore, the concept of free will is moral. Innate morality, however, must have it's root in spirituality. How can we argue the evolution of a moral being? Surely, a moral society could have evolved. A moral society is necessary to peace and happiness, the rejection of morals the root of anarchy. But, a moral being? The mere existence of a moral being necessitates the existence of a moral higher power who has imbued humanity with these intrinsic morals. How else can we explain an expressed belief in the fundamental existence of right and wrong not only as a tool in facilitating a peaceful society but as an inborn human characteristic? Scientists argue a complete separation from spirituality and so, should also reject the concept of free will as a moral right just as Skinner did. The acknowledgement of free will as a human right is the acknowledgement of a moral higher power. United States ideology is founded in a spiritual belief in a higher power, specifically, God. Therefore, they are in line with their values to reject the thought that free will is an illusion in favour of the belief that it is, in fact, an innate human right. However, to separate this spiritual element from the existence and reverence we have of human free will, is inconsistent.
Ultimately, the neglect of the human mind in connection with response to stimuli is what must discredits Skinner's behaviourism theories rather than his rejection of the ideology of free will. Rejection of this idea simply because of Skinner's viewpoint on free will, necessitates the acknowledgement of a moral higher power.
The obsession that the scientific community has with rejecting and isolating science from spirituality is conflicting as science as a whole, does not reject the existence of intrinsic human morals. All this to say that Skinner's theories on free will were consistent with his belief in a separation of spirituality from science. Therefore, the rejection of the importance of free will along with embracing the use of environment to control the development of individuals is the ideal of a non-moralistic society.