Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[GE Morton]

"The typical inmate in our prisons is minority, male, young and uneducated. More than 40 percent of inmates are illiterate; one-third were unemployed when arrested. This profile should tell us something important about the link between crime and lack of opportunity, between crime and lack of hope."

Yes, there is a link. But is not the lack of education and the resulting unemployment that "causes" the crime. Certain traits, behavioral propensities, whether innate or culturally conditioned, endemic within that population underlie both the disinterest in education, the resulting poverty, and the crime.

Are you implying that those traits in other populations doesn't cause crime? If so your "causes" aren't very causal.

"That population" (the phrase you highlighted) refers to the "typical inmate in our prisons," which was the group under discussion. I assume you construed it to refer to an ethnic group. But those traits are present to some extent in all ethnic groups, though they are more prevalent in some than others. To the extent they are present you get crime.

[GE Morton]

Crime doesn't have causes, any more than does any other human behavior. It has motives, as does all other human behavior. No one inquires as to what caused Alfie to go to a movie last night, or what caused him to donate to an animal shelter. We ask what motivated him to do so; what goals or interests he sought to satisfy. We might also ask what alternatives were available to him and what constraints restricted him in that choice situation.

You think motives aren't causes? True, all causes are not motives. True to say all motives are causes.

You can say that motives are causes, but they differ from other causes in that they are themselves uncaused. (We're delving into the free will/determinism debate here).

Also true to say all motives are effects of causes.

Not so. To make the case that A is the cause of B you have to show that B always follows A, unless specified other factors are present. That cannot be done for any human motive or behavior. Humans are "unmoved movers."

[Mark1955]

To make the case that A is the cause of B you have to show that B always follows A, unless specified other factors are present.

So given that you cannot know about the unknown 'other factors' that may be interfering with your 'all cases' argument you can never prove a cause.

That cannot be done for any human motive or behavior. Humans are "unmoved movers."

But how can you make this claim, just because you cannot observe and understand something doe not mean it cannot exist. Humans are quite possibly moved by something, we just aren't anywhere near working out what.

[GE Morton]

GE Morton:

A lefty trope, and an especially egregious example of equating correlation with causation.

Correlations are statistical devices and are not the same as empirical evidence. There is a lot of empirical evidence that poverty and bad government together cause much criminal behaviour. I read a story in the paper this morning about that very theme.

You're begging the question, as (likely) so did the writer of the story you mention. The statistical evidence merely shows a correlation between poverty, illiteracy, and crime. You haven't established causal relationship until you have shown that crime always follows from poverty and/or illiteracy. An alternative explanation is that all three conditions have a common cause.

I'm curious about the correlation between "bad government" and crime. That is a new one for me. Can you elaborate?

[GE Morton]

To make the case that A is the cause of B you have to show that B always follows A, unless specified other factors are present.

So given that you cannot know about the unknown 'other factors' that may be interfering with your 'all cases' argument you can never prove a cause.

Of course you can. Heating water at sea level to 100C will cause it to boil, every time. Firing a large caliber bullet though someone's heart will kill him, every time.

That cannot be done for any human motive or behavior. Humans are "unmoved movers."

But how can you make this claim, just because you cannot observe and understand something doe not mean it cannot exist. Humans are quite possibly moved by something, we just aren't anywhere near working out what.

Oh, many causes for a phenomenon can be imagined or hypothesized. Until they are proven you cannot insist the phenomena is caused.

[LuckyR]

Are you implying that those traits in other populations doesn't cause crime? If so your "causes" aren't very causal.

"That population" (the phrase you highlighted) refers to the "typical inmate in our prisons," which was the group under discussion. I assume you construed it to refer to an ethnic group. But those traits are present to some extent in all ethnic groups, though they are more prevalent in some than others. To the extent they are present you get crime.

If you agree that the causes of an extremely large set of behaviors that fall under the label of "crime", are by definition multifactoral, and while leading ones can be easily categorized, the list (due it's size and complexity) cannot be comprehensively compiled to account for all crime, then we are in agreement.

[Felix]

GE Morton: The statistical evidence merely shows a correlation between poverty, illiteracy, and crime. You haven't established causal relationship until you have shown that crime always follows from poverty and/or illiteracy.

Psychology 101, Lesson 1: When it comes to human behavior, statistical correlation is all we have, it's not possible to demonstrate strict causal relationships.

GE Morton: You can say that motives are causes, but they differ from other causes in that they are themselves uncaused.

That is nonsensical: The motivation to eat is generally caused by hunger, the motivation to procure housing is caused by the need to shelter oneself from the elements, etc., etc.

[GE Morton]

GE Morton: The statistical evidence merely shows a correlation between poverty, illiteracy, and crime. You haven't established causal relationship until you have shown that crime always follows from poverty and/or illiteracy.

Psychology 101, Lesson 1: When it comes to human behavior, statistical correlation is all we have, it's not possible to demonstrate strict causal relationships.

I agree. That is, in fact, what I said, i.e., don't infer causes when all we have are correlations.

GE Morton: You can say that motives are causes, but they differ from other causes in that they are themselves uncaused.

That is nonsensical: The motivation to eat is generally caused by hunger, the motivation to procure housing is caused by the need to shelter oneself from the elements, etc., etc.
[/quote]

Hunger is the motivator to eat. The desire for shelter is the motivator to seek housing. You're using two words to describe the same thing, then claiming one is the cause of the other.

[GE Morton]

If you agree that the causes of an extremely large set of behaviors that fall under the label of "crime" . . .

Well, we can narrow the category of "crime" quite a bit by including only acts that, by force or fraud, reduce another's welfare. But I certainly agree that the underlying psychological, cultural, and possibly genetic factors that give rise to criminal propensities are complex and not at all well understood. Some factors are ubiquitous, but others are obscure. Plus we have crimes committed by persons who seemingly have none of the "red flag" factors.

[Felix]

I said: When it comes to human behavior, statistical correlation is all we have, it's not possible to demonstrate strict causal relationships.

GE Morton said: That is, in fact, what I said, i.e., don't infer causes when all we have are correlations.

You did not say that, for some reason you think that people will not notice your contradictory statements. You said: "You haven't established causal relationship until you have shown that crime always follows from poverty and/or illiteracy." This of course implies that it is possible to show such a causal relationship.

GE Morton said: Hunger is the motivator to eat. The desire for shelter is the motivator to seek housing. You're using two words to describe the same thing, then claiming one is the cause of the other.

Anyone who can read and understand English can see that I was replying to your statement that "motives are uncaused," by giving examples of motives that have obvious causes.

[LuckyR]

If you agree that the causes of an extremely large set of behaviors that fall under the label of "crime" . . .

Well, we can narrow the category of "crime" quite a bit by including only acts that, by force or fraud, reduce another's welfare. But I certainly agree that the underlying psychological, cultural, and possibly genetic factors that give rise to criminal propensities are complex and not at all well understood. Some factors are ubiquitous, but others are obscure. Plus we have crimes committed by persons who seemingly have none of the "red flag" factors.

As you correctly note, since crimes are perpetrated by folks without known "causes", these "causes" aren't behaving like causes, rather like influencers and incomplete influencers at that.

Which circles back to the previous postings listing various traits of the incarcerated. Those traits aren't, themselves causative (as you pointed out at the time), but now we know that we are really looking at influencers, which those same traits seem to be.

[Mark1955]

So given that you cannot know about the unknown 'other factors' that may be interfering with your 'all cases' argument you can never prove a cause.

Of course you can. Heating water at sea level to 100C will cause it to boil, every time. Firing a large caliber bullet though someone's heart will kill him, every time.

Not if you contain it in pressure vessel at 2 bar, not if they're already dead. trite and obvious examples, but true nevertheless and I didn't even need to invoke 'unknown' variables.

[GE Morton]

I said: When it comes to human behavior, statistical correlation is all we have, it's not possible to demonstrate strict causal relationships.

GE Morton said: That is, in fact, what I said, i.e., don't infer causes when all we have are correlations.

You did not say that, for some reason you think that people will not notice your contradictory statements. You said: "You haven't established causal relationship until you have shown that crime always follows from poverty and/or illiteracy." This of course implies that it is possible to show such a causal relationship.

No, it doesn't imply that. You need a refresher course in logic.

GE Morton said: Hunger is the motivator to eat. The desire for shelter is the motivator to seek housing. You're using two words to describe the same thing, then claiming one is the cause of the other.

Anyone who can read and understand English can see that I was replying to your statement that "motives are uncaused," by giving examples of motives that have obvious causes.
[/quote]

Well, obviously the statement you quoted above went right over your head. Desires are motivators; they are not something distinct from them. Desires motivate acts. You seem to think there are three phenomena: desire --->motive --->act. But there are only two: desire --->act. The motive is just a verb linking the two.

[GE Morton]

Well, we can narrow the category of "crime" quite a bit by including only acts that, by force or fraud, reduce another's welfare. But I certainly agree that the underlying psychological, cultural, and possibly genetic factors that give rise to criminal propensities are complex and not at all well understood. Some factors are ubiquitous, but others are obscure. Plus we have crimes committed by persons who seemingly have none of the "red flag" factors.

As you correctly note, since crimes are perpetrated by folks without known "causes", these "causes" aren't behaving like causes, rather like influencers and incomplete influencers at that.

Which circles back to the previous postings listing various traits of the incarcerated. Those traits aren't, themselves causative (as you pointed out at the time), but now we know that we are really looking at influencers, which those same traits seem to be.

I agree.

[GE Morton]

Of course you can. Heating water at sea level to 100C will cause it to boil, every time. Firing a large caliber bullet though someone's heart will kill him, every time.

Not if you contain it in pressure vessel at 2 bar, not if they're already dead. trite and obvious examples, but true nevertheless and I didn't even need to invoke 'unknown' variables.

Yes, my test conditions weren't fully specified. But they can be.