Here's an interesting case driven by surgical removal of part of the brain. http://www.businessinsider.com/radiolab-story-on-klverbucy-s...

Yes and No, I guess. It depends.. I don't know what someone would achieve by arguing that way, hence my reply.

But please enlighten me.. Maybe I am getting it wrong, or am just not seeing it..

But sure, just put it all on "biochemical processes".. and no one is responsible for anything any more. Brave New World.

Whether or not you like the implications behind something doesn't make it less true. There is a book called 'Behave' written by Robert Sapolsky which lays out that human behavior is determined by the configuration of your brain, hormone levels, culture, the environment you were raised in, etc (basically all things over which you have no control).

For example, if you have an underdeveloped prefrontal cortex then you are going to be more impulsive and have a hard time delaying gratification. These people are way more susceptible to committing crimes and it is purely down to bad luck that they weren't born with the right genes (or had some sort of injury that damaged their PFC). Another example is if you have a smaller amygdala, you're going to have a higher pain tolerance and experience less fear than someone with a normal sized amygdala. Again, this can change your behavior quite a bit as you won't be able to relate to what the average person experiences when they are in pain. These people will have less moral compass than others.

With those things in mind, Sapolsky agrees that if an individual poses a threat to others, we should still lock them in prison for the good of society. But the more we understand what leads to human behavior, the more we're going to realize how many things are out of our control (almost all of it).

Whether or not Robert Sapolsky likes the implications behind that does not make it less true (or anyone else for that matter).

When did this notion take hold that we can answer such complex matters with simple solutions?

Do people on here even realize how old this stupid Nature vs Nurture debate is?

Probably not. I guess most older HN users have already abandoned ship, leaving only the greenhorns behind.

At least that would explain it.

And again, I am not arguing for anything here. I am just the Devil's Advocate.

I'm not sure I follow what your argument is here? Just for your information, Robert Sapolsky is a neuroendocrinologist from Stanford who has been studying this exact subject for the past 4 decades. The book agrees with your point that looking for a single reason to explain human behavior is impossible and a lot of things contribute (hence why he covers so many determinants of behavior, such as what is going on in your brain, your genes, what is going on with your hormones, where you were born, how you were raised, etc).

I don't see why the nature vs nurture debate is stupid or why how old it is matters? Clearly both things determine human behavior. The main point to be made in Sapolskys book is that almost all determinants of your behavior are out of your control. You don't choose which country you're born in, what genes you have, whether your brain develops properly, whether your parents are kind people or terrible people, what neighborhood you grow up in, what race or gender you are. Perhaps you should read Sapolskys book.

I don't see how that follows. Just because things can be explained by biochemical processes doesn't absolve anyone of responsibility. Even if you assume a person's behavior is completely deterministic, without any free will at all, holding someone responsible for their actions is still the right thing to do. It might change how we should treat those individuals, of course, but it isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_responsibility