Chapter+26+Moral+and+Legal+Control+ANSWERS

** Moral and Legal Control ** ** ANSWERS **
 * Chapter 26 **

1. The idea that “effective moral and legal control must basically be aversive” versus “we can build a world without aversive control”

a. What is the PB viewpoint on this debate?

Additionally, if we are talking about effectively **//reducing//** behavior, then of course we are going to be talking about analogs to either **//penalty//** or **//punishment//** and these also use threats of aversive consequences to control our behavior. So, in either case (increasing or decreasing behavior), it is the threat of aversive consequences that controls our behavior. It would seem that it is impossible to build a world without aversive control. And even though some people may like to speak about it that way (for PR purposes or maybe personal reasons), it seems that //“the devil has more reinforcers than the angels…”//
 * ANSWER:** According to PB, in the case of moral and legal control, one is usually dealing with indirect-acting contingencies. And we know that if one is going to effectively //increase// behavior, we are going to need to put in place **//deadlines//**. When we place deadlines in the picture, then we are dealing with analogs to **//avoidance//**. These can take the form of avoiding the loss of an opportunity (heaven) or simply avoiding an aversive consequence (hell). In either case, it is the avoidance of an **aversive condition** that is controlling our behavior.


 * Moral and legal control usually involve indirect-acting contingencies.
 * For an indirect-acting contingency to increase or maintain performance it should have a deadline and be an analog to avoidance.
 * For an indirect-acting contingency to decrease performance it should be an analog to penalty or punishment.
 * In both cases it is the threat of aversive consequences that control behavior.