I disagree.

katysails wrote:
I knew you would...


Hah! By appearing to be predictable, I lull you into a false sense of
security!

But seriously, a behavioristic (or mechanistic, as some people think of
it) way of instilling "good" behavior works quite well; however I don't
think it is in any way related to developing a set of ethical and moral
values. It is a good holding action until those values can be developed,
though


And what is it that determines what is "good" vs what is "bad"?

Well, we haven't gotten into that. It's a whole seperate issue for
consideration.


... Behaviorism
can be used to direct any type of behavior pattern to the will of the
director if applied correctly...

Bingo. Considering that it's pretty simple, it's surprising that more
people can't do it. I have never (and hopefully, will never) raised
children, but I have raised a number of dogs, all of whom were well
behaved. Our current dog, adopted from the pound as an adult, has been
the biggest challenge, and after a few months he's shaping up quite nicely.



...developing conscience adds the element of
appropriateness according to a set of moral or ethical values...

I'm not sure what you mean by "appropriate."

In order to follow a rational moral or ethical code one must be
directed...one must have a formed consciounce...

I definitely agree.

... fear of comnsequence is the
most advantageous way to learn that...

I disagree, these are two seperate things entirely. They do have
*almost* the same result, however.

For example, it is wrong to kill people. It's one of the biggest no-nos
in all societies' ethos. However, it is also universally... in all
societies, past or present... allowed or even encouraged under very
specific circumstances. You can use behaviorism to reinforce the idea
'thou shalt not kill' but this does nothing whatever about those special
circumstances. And it's a problem, the military does a fairly directed
training towards giving soldiers the emotional capacity to kill, and
many (those with social restraint but no conscience, no moral or ethical
values ingrained) cause problems later on.

Another example is "thou shalt not steal." Is it wrong for a mother to
steal bread, so that she can feed her child? Is it wrong for a mayor to
award public construction contracts to his brother-in-law?


A sociopath restrained by fear is still restrained..which is a good
thing...a sociopath is typically amoral...there is only what is good or bad
for him...

Right. We have a few right here in this newsgroup...


I believe that people learn to be bad or good and if not presented with the
right choices and the right consequences, that they will choose bad. In the
long run, it is far easier to be a bad person because the self-gratification
is so great.

Not sure if I disagree, but keep in mind that our moral sense is
inherited from hundreds of thousands of years of human life in
communities. Choosing bad actions has bad results, often for the
individual in the long run and almost always for the community in the
long and short run. Selfishness is not considered a virtue in any human
society that I've heard of.

It's my belief, demonstrable in history, that following a good code of
morals is the surest path to success in the long run. This applies to
the individual and the community... and "community" can (perhaps *must*)
be expanded to include most of mankind. This is one reason why I have a
big problem with our current political set-up.




... I do believe tha thteir are honest and good people, but that
they are honest and good because they have chosen to be that way.


Following from your earlier statements, it would seem that good & honest
people are that way because their mothers hammered it into them. And
that, I agree with!

Regards
Doug King

"DSK" wrote



I have never (and hopefully, will never) raised
children, but I have raised a number of dogs, all of whom were well
behaved.

Pretty much the same thing, only you need a bigger choker chain.

Scotty