Rath said:
I don't believe in moral absolutism, however I do believe that in comparing criminality between countries you have to take a stance of at least some moral absolutism, or compare specific crimes. Otherwise you end up comparing very very different things and its all a bit pointless unless you're studying the perception of criminalities between societies rather than actual crime rates. However if you take murder, robbery, rapes, assaults and muggings and compare them for example (which are considered criminal pretty much everywhere) and compare them you will find that the Scandinavian countries will generally be towards the bottom end of the scale. Another interesting one to take is the number of people imprisoned per 1000 people. Though of course that also runs into problems, especially in tyranical countries where people are imprisoned for political reasons. |
Ah, however the original point, and the point that you were trying to prove were the committing of crimes. If you don't believe in moral absolutism then you can't take any stance of moral absolutism.
Since the value you are trying to get at is the number of people who are willing to commit crimes.
The only way to judge this is by what each culture counts as a crime and by judging it based on that. It allows you to adjust better for cultural differences. (though is still by no means perfect.)
By comparing direct crimes you are doing nothing but covering up for the commiting of non-universal crimes which is a very bad flaw in methodology.
Afterall if we had great data on software piracy, should China suddenly be seen as very criminal? Even though piracy isn't seen as bad as an offense?
Your methodology is about as off as it could be in this case. If your going to compare morals cross cultures you need to account for cultural differences.
Besides... as was stated... those countries crime rates per capita are going up along with atheism. So the simple more accurate within culture model debunks your arguement.
Of course with all the variables out there it doesn't prove the opposite either, though it does go far enough to where you should realize you were wrong in your original thesis.
| Kasz216 said: Ah, however the original point, and the point that you were trying to prove were the committing of crimes. If you don't believe in moral absolutism then you can't take any stance of moral absolutism. Since the value you are trying to get at is the number of people who are willing to commit crimes. The only way to judge this is by what each culture counts as a crime and by judging it based on that. It allows you to adjust better for cultural differences. (though is still by no means perfect.) By comparing direct crimes you are doing nothing but covering up for the commiting of non-universal crimes which is a very bad flaw in methodology. Afterall if we had great data on software piracy, should China suddenly be seen as very criminal? Even though piracy isn't seen as bad as an offense? Your methodology is about as off as it could be in this case. If your going to compare morals cross cultures you need to account for cultural differences. |
However many of the crimes committed and prosecuted for are not universally looked upon as being morally bad in Denmark or Sweden, such as drug use or piracy. Also a huge confounding factor is the number of crimes prosecuted for or counted as criminal by the country, for example while smoking cannabis may be against the law in two countries, in one country it may only lead to a criminal conviction in one.
In any case, this debate is entirely pointless, I was merely pointing out that atheism has no known relation to a lack of discipline in a population, something which you seem to agree with given your previous post.
Well of course not. I mean most religions don't really have that harsh penalties for committing criems since well... everyone is likely to comit some crimes.
Additionally such a statistic is really hard to judge unless you actually used something like... church attendence or something which doesn't hold true for all religions as the number of people who are really atheists is likely higher then the number self reported just due to familiarity to a religion.
Rath said:
Several major problems with those statistics. To quote somebody who posted on that page (and did an excellent job of it in my opinion): "Comparing international crime statistics must be done with great caution. Statistics compiled by the United Nations are based on surveys that specify that crimes be counted based on each country's legislated definition of what constitute a "crime". Some countries may include misdemeanor offences, where a fine is issued while others may only count imprisionable offences. Also, counting the crime takes place at different places in the law-enforcement process. Consequently, some countries may count every reported breach of the law, while others may only count cases that make it to court, and even then only the most serious of several charges laid. Because there is so much inconsistency in these statistics, they might also be a quality measure of the standard and efficiency of law enforcement and the criminal justice system of a country, rather than having anything to do with actual prevalence of crime." Thats why countries like NZ are up the top when clearly NZ is not hideously crime ridden.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita Murder is less ambigious and more obvious, though I imagine in the more violent countries sometimes unreported/uninvestigated. |
If comparing crimes nation to nation is flawed, why did you bring it up to begin with?
 |
| To Each Man, Responsibility |
| Kasz216 said: Why would you have to pay money for a permit for practicing your religion? Are we the Ottoman empire all of a sudden? |
When did you had to pay for practicing your religion in Ottoman empire?
BladeOfGod said:
|
All the time? When the Ottomon Turks were in control Christians and Jews had to pay a tax to practice their religion.
| Sqrl said: If comparing crimes nation to nation is flawed, why did you bring it up to begin with?
|
My source did compare specific crimes. It compared the number of homicides etc. Doing that has far far fewer problems than just comparing 'crimes' because homicide is less ambigious and more obvious when committed.
In any case as I said, my only point was that there has never been evidence of a causal relationship between atheism and crime, I don't believe there is a causal relationship between religion and crime either. My source showed a correlation (and note that I do know the difference between a corellation and causal relationship) between religion and criminality, but I never claimed the relationship was causal.
Now can we get back to the original discussion, please.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
