Let us note that we have an almost universal approach to non-optimal behavior, at least beyond certain limits, namely: "Bad behavior should be punished."

It almost never occurs to us that this assumption might be incorrect.

But we do try to make a judgment as to whether the individual "knew what he was doing and knew that it was wrong." And we also give some consideration to whether the impulse to do it was "irresistible." Notice that we are using concepts related to the concept of "free will."

When we work together to establish a social structure that operates to maximize the "good life" (defined above) for everyone, we are using the Objective Model. The concept of "free will," as we have seen, has no place in the Objective Model. Instead, what we are concerned with is "what works," that is, what societal procedures actually do maximize the good life for everyone, now and in the future.

So there should be, and I predict ultimately will be, a re-evaluation of that almost universal belief that "bad behavior should be punished."

We obviously believe that it works. But we should also look around and ask how well it works.

We must remember that we have never, so far, operated according to a view, held by everyone, that we should not engage in punishment.

There have been limited attempts to substitute "rehabilitation" for punishment, but this has always been within the broader context of a culture that expects some sort of punishment (purposely induced suffering) to accompany such programs or approaches. And when such approaches have been contemplated, concepts such as that of "coddling criminals" have arisen in response.

But as we contemplate where we are going as a species, and what we want to accomplish, serious thought should be given to this basic assumption (of the necessity of punishment).

And right along with assessment of our assumptions about this societal approach to the response to adult non-optimal behavior should be an assessment, I believe, as noted above, of our basic assumptions about child rearing.

Now this in no way means that we can do away with supervision (of adults or children). We know that non-optimal behavior is a part of our repertoire, simply on the basis that we have a basic animal nature that makes likely some naturally occurring behaviors that are non-optimal, combined with the predictable lack of perfection of skills in modifying our naturally occurring tendencies.

So if some of us adults have, as a result of biological or experiential factors, a tendency to engage in serious non-optimal behavior, then certainly we must have methods in our "government" that protect both such individuals and others from the consequences of such behavior, i.e., from the behavior itself.

So to take an extreme example, there will undoubtedly be individuals who are dangerous to others, and therefore should be quarantined for as long as that is so.

But note that such quarantine does not imply in any way that we should make such individuals suffer. We have begun to be concerned about the quality of life for other species that we know have to be supervised to prevent harmful behavior. So even though we keep lions in cages or other enclosures, we try to make them comfortable.

And why does this idea, namely, that of making "criminals" as comfortable as possible, lead to such an outcry from most people? I would maintain that it is because of motivation that has nothing at all to do with helping such individuals develop the skills that would make them no longer a danger to others and has nothing at all to do with preventing them from repeating such behavior, should the attainment of such skills be impossible. That other motivation, I believe, quite obviously is revenge. We very much believe in revenge, at all levels of social interaction, from interpersonal to international. We may use euphemisms as we describe what we are doing, because we sort of know that revenge often obviously causes bad things to become worse. So we use words like "justice," and talk of how the bad things that are happening to such individuals are simply their "getting what they deserve," "the consequences of their behavior." (It is not we that are deciding to make the person suffer, but instead the person himself or herself, we say. Our hands are clean.)

Revenge, behavior motivated by anger with the goal of causing PSDED, is indeed a part of our basic animal nature. It promotes survival of the species, but certainly does not promote a good quality of life for everyone.

Needless to say, those people who have been injured or otherwise "wronged" certainly cannot help but have anger toward those who are responsible, but that does not mean that such motivation should be acted upon in the form of revenge. That remains a separate question. (And we do know, of course, that some wronged individuals truly seem to be able to restructure their beliefs such as to no longer experience that anger, such restructuring perhaps being referred to as "forgiveness," a phenomenon that we vaguely recognize indeed has some value.)

And it should not be overlooked that one possible motivation causing behavior injurious to others is that of chronic anger, induced by having been exposed to highly punitive child rearing and/or the bullying that children engage in to do to others what has been done to them within their own experience of being reared.

(By the way, when I speak of punishment of children, I do not just mean formal, or even specifically physical, punishment, but also informal punishment that includes all the ways of speaking to the child, and non-verbal ways of communicating to the child, that deliberately cause the child to feel bad.)

Our current, punitive, approach to non-optimal behavior is such as to cause individuals to have a very great urge to hide such behavior, including especially "lying to stay out of trouble." This results in much lost opportunity to obtain help from others in overcoming such tendencies.

Of course, we should recognize that we humans have not yet developed well-understood and highly reliable methods of changing behavior, especially of adults. But I would maintain that our automatic acceptance of the necessity for punishment actually undermines our obtaining of that knowledge.

Nevertheless, we have indeed experimented with, and have even come to value to some extent, such approaches in certain limited areas. An example would be the effort to provide (non-punitive) psychotherapy for children who are manifesting "behavior problems."

Now let us again note the role that the concept of "free will" plays in our natural tendency to punish.

If a person is believed to have engaged in the non-optimal behavior "of his or her own free will," then we are especially reluctant to abandon the idea of punishment (revenge). But if the individual were considered to have done what he or she did, for example, as part of a temporal lobe seizure, we would tend to lose our anger toward the individual and give up the idea of punishment. We might still consider even quarantine, with evaluation of the evidence of benefit of treatment before allowing the individual free movement among the rest of us. But we would not want the individual to experience unnecessary suffering.

Yet, the most effective methods of reducing the likelihood of repetition of non-optimal behavior, or of reducing the risk of such behavior, are going to be ascertained, not by how we feel about the behavior and the individual, but by the procedures we have developed within the Objective Model for developing accurate beliefs, on the basis of which we can accurately predict that the likelihood of such behavior will be reduced by those methods. (And these procedures are the ones used in the sciences, following the rules of logic and the rules of evidence.)

And the development of such methods (of reducing non-optimal behavior) is most certainly going to involve an understanding of how the brain works, even if our methods of studying how the brain works make use of shorthand models of what is occurring in the brain, namely, "mental entities" within the Mental Model.

We do have to realize that the issue of whether punishment is effective or not, or whether certain kinds of punishment, in certain kinds of situations, are effective, or the best possible approach, is a matter for scientific study. My belief that punishment, in general, makes things worse, is subject to scientific study. I may be wrong. But the answer should be obtained by scientific study, not by my feelings or those of even the majority of society (or the consensus of society, since it is still possible for everyone to be wrong). Nevertheless, we should note that probably the vast majority of people have the opinion that the answer is "obvious."