GammaTheGreat

In that case, I would understand if you wanted to solve for probabilities given that the assumptions change. I guess my revised position would be that I agree with those that don't see a legitimate controversy regarding the Problem - if you stay within the original assumptions (the rules Monty follows). You're correct (as you know) that the probability changes if the assumptions (rules) of the Problem changes. Your point is now understood! I should have taken it upon myself to understand it more clearly from the beginning. Thanks for the added clarification though. And as far as the chart goes, I should have said I utilized a similar format of chart - a similar structure. It was just a case of people needing more (and different) exposure and examples, rather than needing "better" examples. Sorry, I have been pretty unclear. Try not to hold it against me, I just started posting with you all a few days ago.

As I explained, it is the diagram I used for a freshman level critical reasoning class. It elicits a sufficient understanding for their purposes. However, since you brought it up, its a relatively simple concept and its practical applications are limited. That being said, for my purposes, it's just a tool concept to help someone understand the larger concept for later learning. Also, since part of the Problem is that you can't know if you should switch before choosing to do so/not do so, regardless of what lies behind each door in any situation, it's probably in your best interest to switch doors. The Problem doesn't contend that it will always turn out in your favor, only that, on average, its probably in your best interest to switch doors. I might be misunderstanding what you're claiming, or maybe even the Problem on the whole, so please do elaborate. I'm here to learn! =] EDIT: sorry to restate you, ecoli. I hadn't loaded your post yet.

It seems that I skipped a page of the thread on accident. Thanks for letting me know. Yeah you're right, but I just put it there as a tool to make the original problem ridiculously simple (hopefully unnecessarily so). I would (really) hope everyone here can read your chart, but I did have some trouble explaining it to some of the students using a similar chart for my purposes, as some people are chart-tarded. My mistake, and thanks.

This diagram was helpful to people in my freshman level critical reasoning class... Door 1 Door 2 - Door 3 result if staying at door #1 -- result if switched Car Goat Goat -- Car Goat Goat Car Goat -- Goat Car Goat Goat Car -- Goat Car Note the outcomes, it explains the concept to people who aren't particularly probabilities-savvy.

I'm not sure that to say criminals, mentally ill and well alike, have a "debt" to pay is entirely fitting. That being said, depending on the state, a person can be found to lack the mental capacity to stand trial. Also, depending on the state, it is possible that the defendants' mental disabilities were not seen as severe enough to render the person without the capacity to tell "right" from "wrong," or "legal" from "illegal" in the case of what may be an amoral law. I also take into account that a mental disorder can be defined as an impairment or pattern of behavior that causes mental distress and significantly affects one's ability to function normally. With that definition, nearly all people who behaves in a way that winds them up in prison could be said to suffer from a mental disorder of some sort. But they very well might not deserve to be held responsible for their actions. However, the problem is that the current system doesn't hold people responsible in the correct way, which is, as aforementioned, rehabilitation. The current system promotes a sense of "justice" in correctional facilities. I am hesitant to speak out against any form of "justice," and I must say that the principle of justice has its rightful place in the Judicial system, however, not so much in the general correctional facilities. I'm not saying that criminals don't deserve to be punished, because I think it's necessary that they are. I do not think, however, that it should punishment be for the sake of revenge or retribution, rather it should be for punishment that serves toward crime prevention and criminal rehabilitation. Good point John, that's something you should throw up in another thread. I can see that stirring up interesting ideas.

I agree with both of you, iNow and ewmon. You're views on rehabilitation and marginalization as it relates to corrective institutions and society are spot-on. Sorry, I was unclear that when I was speaking to "rehabilitation" I was merely using the term in the way the State views it. I only wanted to grant them that in order to address the separate issue. Sorry for the lack of clarity.

Far right conservatives (both social & fiscal conservatives) base many of their social policies on dogmatism or emotion, and far left liberals (fiscal & social liberals) base many of their fiscal policies on emotion. If you believe that one must be on a far end of the spectrum, you're ignorant and doomed.

This is an interesting issue with a bit of a Les Miserables theme. On one hand, sex-offenders such as pedophiles, it is widely-believed, can not stop being pedophiles. It is simply their sexual orientation, not to belittle the seriousness of their offenses. To allow them to reside in close proximity to a school is to put children in danger and to put them in a position of temptation. However, if they have done their due time, such time that is deemed necessary to punish or rehabilitate such offenders, then should they not be deemed rehabilitated? Not to put the two offenses on equal levels, but to my knowledge, those who have been convicted of some sort of large-scale robbery of a commercial institution and complete their sentence are not barred from living near commercial areas, and they are not banned from all stores. So, why do we view one person as rehabilitated and the other as a marked man? The reality of it may be, as aforementioned, that sex offenders are likely to commit more sexual crimes once released, but it cannot be the answer that they must be forced live in destitution. Realistically, forcing someone into poverty is a great way to cause someone to act criminally. The answer, in my opinion, is that, while the legislators may mean well, the law has overstepped its practical and ethical bounds.

Hey I'm GammaTheGreat and I've been reading the forums for about a month now and finally got around to setting up an account. I'm studying Letters/Pre-Law at the University of Oklahoma. I obviously don't have a science background but I love the Philosophy forums and I'm looking forward to being able to start my own threads.

If you're interested in other aspects of this topic, you should look into Thomas Nagel's inquiry into Moral Luck. His inquiry delves more into how to judge a person's actions morally, but, in my opinion, it applies, in-part, to this discussion. It would seem that when people accuse the successful of enjoying success purely due to luck, they assume that the successful merely inherited success (whether by bequest, nepotism, cronyism, geographic location etc.), were lucky in how a choice (perhaps a gamble) turned out, or maybe even were "lucky" to have been born with certain innate talents. The reply I would give is that, granting that ALL successful benefit from one or more of the above scenarios, these people took advantage (no negative connotation implied) of what opportunities were given them. Perhaps one must accept that not all people enjoy the same circumstances (luck), but that it is the natural way of the world that some are born more "lucky" than others. If we accept this, we must then ask, does anyone who is successful deserve their success? Yes, it is the case that many successful people were very lucky, but they, then, took advantage, and became successful; similarly, there must be people that were lucky but did not take advantage, and as a result, were not successful. To indict the successful as undeserving is basically to say that no one should take advantage of a favorable circumstance. If you accept that the world is, in fact, unfair, and realize that not everyone enjoys the same "luck," then you must furthermore accept that one has no choice as to whether they receive luck, good or bad. If you accept that grim truth, then you cannot indict those who take advantage of that precious luck. Would not everyone take advantage of favorable circumstances (luck) if they arose? And if the answer is 'no,' then the answer to the whole question is that those who are successful not only enjoyed luck, but capitalized on it, rendering them deserving of such luck in the first place. PS - I did my best to explore the question, but it is my first post. I imagine I'm not as well-read as some, so if you have differing opinions, I don't discredit them =]. Please respond! Nagel_Moral Luck-2.pdf here is the file for Nagel's moral luck!