Is it better to reward the people that do good things?
Or is it better to punish the people who do bad things?
If you had to choose one exclusively, which would you pick, and why?
---
To add a little twist... What if you had to choose between rewarding bad, or punishing good? ... How would you order those four? (Or five, if we have a "Do nothing" option.)
I can see the first set of questions being a possiblity of life when pressed for time, but my added twist likely wouldn't follow human morals.
Edit: What would you pick to follow yourself, rather than the entire world?
Reward good.
As I interpret this question, it's a choice between a world where there's no reason to do anything bad, and a world where there's no reason to anything good. The former is safe but boring, the latter is a bit riskier but at least we're getting somewhere.
It's worth noting that in the world we currently live in, there are rewards for doing bad deeds. If there weren't, people wouldn't do them. So a world where good but not bad deeds are rewarded would probably be the best overall.
Well it is also depending on what you define as 'good' and 'bad'.
I guess you mean caring for other induviduals and following general rules as 'good' and the opposite as 'bad'.
My first pick would be puninishing those who are bad. In this case, there is no competition I think. But, bad behavior is harder to remove, so I guess the first option does fine.
Rewarding bad would be more destructive I think. So I pick punishing good.
Quote from: Misery on 20, November, 2014, 08:58:48 AM
Reward good.
As I interpret this question, it's a choice between a world where there's no reason to do anything bad, and a world where there's no reason to anything good. The former is safe but boring, the latter is a bit riskier but at least we're getting somewhere.
It's worth noting that in the world we currently live in, there are rewards for doing bad deeds. If there weren't, people wouldn't do them. So a world where good but not bad deeds are rewarded would probably be the best overall.
100% correct. People do not do things for no reason. As a lighter example, people steal because they're rewarded with money. If somehow, magically, people stealing resulted in that money just disappearing entirely, they would have no reason to steal - there would be no reward for it. In other cases, the reward mechanisms are psychological, but since we already need magic to make the stealing example work, let's just invoke it again for the psychological motivators. Whatever heinous acts that they somehow derive pleasure from... no longer deliver pleasure to them. They're no longer being rewarded, and thus the motivation for doing them subsides as well. If such a world were possible, we would be in a utopia by now.
As for why punishing bad is a worse choice, it's very simple: Punishment, while effective for preventing aversive behavior, does
absolutely nothing to encourage positive behavior. In such a world, no one would do anything "bad," but they also wouldn't have any reason to do anything "good." Taken to its logical extreme, such a world would result in everyone being completely neutral. The world would be static, and nothing good would ever come again. The human race would die out in a matter of days, since people would no longer eat or drink; their reward system no longer exists, so they have no motivation to do so.
So, the obvious answer is reward good. Although "good" and "bad" are super loose concepts here...
As for the question of whether rewarding "bad" or punishing "good" would be worse... how in the hell do you come up with this stuff? Like only punishing "bad," either scenario, when taken to their logical extremes, would result in the complete annihilation of humans in only a couple days. But, even if not taken to their logical extremes, then whatever "good" and "bad" meant in the first place are now swapped. This is because on an individual basis, we consider anything "good" that grants us reward and anything "bad" that either lacks reward or grants punishment. This would further generalize to society as a whole. If you reward "bad," you end up with a population that commits "bad" things, which is expected of them. If you punish "good," you also end up with a population that commits "bad" things, because they have become adverse to doing "good" things (if you want to know which would be "worse," then it's probably this one). In either case, "bad" becomes the societal norm, and "good" becomes the new "bad." Both cases are highly self-destructive.
"human morals": I couldn't think what it was I wanted to say, so I used those words. They were probably the wrong words, though? Pretty much what I meant was what a person with a right/honest mind would likely do. (Ex: Would a
good person steal from someone for a large reward.)
Quotetheir reward system no longer exists
Perhaps I messed up my question? When I came up with this topic. I think it was about whether you'd reward others for the good thing(s) they've done, not whether people could reward themselves. ; I guess it was supposed to be thought in a mother or best friend perspective. ; Ex: Pretty much what a single person would be limited to, in how they treat others, rather than the entire world. ; That was what I saw when I typed up
QuoteI can see the first set of questions being a possiblity of life when pressed for time
... The other is unrealistic.
I hate false dichotomies like these. :/
False dichotomies? = Two groups that are equally opposing, and you can't stay neutral?
On the contrary, I suppose I'd rather look at it as a priority thing, when you only have time for one, and have to get to the other later. (Or not at all.) ; That makes it realistic enough for me.
Meh, I never seem to get my posts right the first time I type them...
; No idea if I can use a version of this in a personality type of quiz...
Quote from: Fox on 21, November, 2014, 07:32:22 PM
False dichotomies? = Two groups that are equally opposing, and you can't stay neutral?
On the contrary, I suppose I'd rather look at it as a priority thing, when you only have time for one, and have to get to the other later. (Or not at all.) ; That makes it realistic enough for me.
Meh, I never seem to get my posts right the first time I type them...
; No idea if I can use a version of this in a personality type of quiz...
False Ditchotomies=== You etheir with me, or against me. my way or the highway.
and please, rewarding bad actions ? you crazy ? I can't reward rapes and murders.
Punishing good actions, who, that is the same thing.
so you vent four thirthy cents or a dollar ?
QuoteFalse Ditchotomies=== You etheir with me, or against me. my way or the highway.
Except this isn't about being with me, this is about picking sides. (Or rather, which one you prefer over the other... not that you're actually going with that, since of-course, you have better options.)
--
And now here's another random one:
Would you rather be the only one in heaven, or the only one in hell? (If it meant everyone else got to go to the other.)
I could maybe turn this topic into a "Make up dichotomies"... if answering them were too boring. (And then people could pick their favorites.)
Yeah, the problem with this is that you really need to incorporate both. Reward the good while punishing the bad. If all you do is punish bad, then nobody has a reason to be good. They just be... mediocre. If all you do is reward good, then the bad's likely to get worse - those who don't get rewarded feel the need to take it out on things.
Quotethen nobody has a reason to be good.
Since I believe I was limiting this to one person,... (At least at some point to keep things more realistic.) "No reason to be good to you."
I probably should have edited the first post after making that other post awhile back, oh well...
I'd go with punishing actions known to be bad, let the people find their own reasons to do good.
I find that most people, including those that commit crimes, have a natural sense for good, in that they are aware of basic morals from an early age. As an extreme example, a young psychotic child might find it easy to decide to step on top of his pet, knowing that it is a vulnerable animal that most likely will not be able to retaliate effectively and is unable to communicate, but he won't consider doing this to his parents as quickly or as easily. This is because he is unconsciously aware that, even without being told not to harm a person, doing so would incite a retaliation and may negate any benefit he would receive from the act. This is a natural survival mechanism. In the same way, the child may also feed his pet an extra helping of food simply out of adoration for that same animal, which he could just as easily inflict harm upon. This is because violence and other crimes are unnatural to most humans, they are learned over time to adapt to violent or poor conditions. To punish poor behavior provides a sense of retaliation similar to that the child believes he will be subjected to if he harms one of his parents, which in many cases will prevent that child from harming others. In that regard, the child isn't the one being rewarded when he feeds his pet an extra helping, but he may do it just as easily and far more often than he would act on a violent impulse - and this is a child who is already more prone to doing bad things as a result of his disorder. As a result, most people are more naturally prone to committing decent acts, as they come more easily than violence and poor behavior.
It depends on the situation really. I tend to lean on positive reinforcement though, I believe that people should be rehabilitated first and foremost as opposed to simply punished. In many cases, especially more heinous crimes, it's almost impossible to use positive reinforcement and a punishment must be instilled somehow. However it should be focused on rehab. You're trying to dissuade the behaviour, so punishment simply for the sake of vengeance doesn't necessarily stop that behaviour in the future.
Reward Good
Why?
One way to reward the good is by punishing the bad.
Define "bad" in this case though. Is a bad person someone who merely breaks the law, or is it someone who does something morally reprehensible?
Quote from: Lord Squirtle on 13, May, 2015, 11:46:00 AM
Define "bad" in this case though. Is a bad person someone who merely breaks the law, or is it someone who does something morally reprehensible?
Can everybody here agree on that each induvidual has another view on what is good and what is bad if they have a view on it at all?
Also, that a person's view is not static?
I'm also adding something to what I said earlier:
QuoteRewarding bad would be more destructive I think. So I pick punishing good. This will look like real live, since most 'bad' things are most of the time just the easier way of getting something. A simple example would be: you can either steal an apple or get a job to buy it. Getting a job is usually harder.