sc94597 said:
If you teach somebody that something is wrong, child or adult, then they will be generally disuaded from doing it because they know internally why it is wrong. If you tell somebody that something is wrong, child or adult, then they might be disuaded from doing it, but they might also think you are projecting your morals on to them. A child or adult needs to feel something is wrong for it to have any effect, and certainly they might still choose to do the wrong thing because the alternative in their eyes is worse. Again, you are using an argument that there is some objective morality. There is not. Certain morals might be popular, but that doesn't make them objective. You need to imprint on the child why something is immoral so that they can agree that it is immoral. Or you might be able to describe it in a way that they can internalize. To just say something is bad doesn't work. And in this case there are conflicting moral beliefs on the topic (I'm assuming she was experimenting with drugs.) I am one to believe that society is responsible for reparation more than punitive controls. Helping people get back toward productive habits as opposed to punishing them for negative habits is a much better way of doing things. Sometimes a "punishment" is used to achieve this, but the goal isn't punishment but rather reparation. If you damage somebody so much more than their negative activity, then is that not counterproductive? It is like how we throw drug-users in prison so that they can get a criminal record and not be able to get a productive job and the consequence is that they have no means to leave their drug addiction because there are negative factors against them being able to reparate themselves. In this case, the father overdid his punishment, and instead of having a daughter who experiments with drugs he has no daughter at all. |
"If you teach somebody that something is wrong, child or adult, then they will be generally disuaded from doing it"
well i disagree... i think very often people know for themselves that certain actions are wrong and proceed to carry them out anyway because they ultimately put their interests above the interests of others or their environment
"Again, you are using an argument that there is some objective morality."
well no i'm not every individual decides for themselves regardless of the general perception what is right and what is wrong... if that wasn't the case lgbt people would never have been able to have a significant impact on society
lgbt people decided for themselves that they would ignore the accepted standard for moraility and fought for their right to pursue relationships with members of their sex... to ultimately change the general perception of morality
the point i'm making is that people choose to ignore their own internal perceptions of what "right" is routinely... i do it, you do it, everyone does it... and that will never ever change
"I am one to believe that society is responsible for reparation more than punitive controls."
reparation is reactive though but anyway
we will never live in a utopia where everyone gets along and no one is harmed... there will always be suffering and pain
the desire for a utopia is what will be used in the coming years to tear away more and more of man's freedoms because as i said people are always going to harm each other so what is the solution?
the solution is to take away man's freedom to harm each other
"It is like how we throw drug-users in prison so that they can get a criminal record and not be able to get a productive job and the consequence is that they have no means to leave their drug addiction because there are negative factors against them being able to reparate themselves."
well i'll level with you that the war on drugs is possibly the silliest sham there ever has been
millions spent every year and what? drugs are easily accessible to anyone who wants them; it was ultimately a plot to bleed the tax payers of money
so anyway i think that if someone wants to use drugs it should be up to them to do so and you shouldn't be arrested for using them because lets be honest the war on drugs isn't about stopping people from harming themselves since alcohol is widely accessible
i think a better example would be people that steal but again i don't think that these people are unaware of the fact that its wrong
but because of whatever circumstance they need money and so put that interest above the rights of the store owner
but i see what you are saying in that we deprive the person of a chance to become productive after their crime, but i don't think the victims of the crime would be satisfied if their abuser is allowed to just continue living without bearing some kind of consequence for their actions