And lo On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 12:39:59 -0000, scott <sco### [at] scottcom> did  
spake thusly:

>> Ah but if you accept that we're simply rationalising actions already  
>> determined by our unconscious the chemical reactions that make you want  
>> to rob the store were countered/blocked by chemical reactions that  
>> stopped you. In the  case of those who did rob the store said  
>> counter-reactions simply weren't strong enough and whose fault is that?
>
> It doesn't matter so much whose fault it is, just that something should  
> be done to ensure that in the future that person has strong enough  
> counter reactions to stop them robbing the store.  Making that person  
> pay some money or sit in jail for a while can have that effect.

But you're punishing them for something that's not their fault ;-)

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message