| o_O.Q said:
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 |
A few things:
1. It is important to show how by harming others they can hurt themselves, if we are left with the assumption that people are selfishly motivated (which I don't disagree with.) For example, a sociopath/narcissist realizes very quickly that he or she can't do whatever he wants, despite only caring about him/herself. Why? Because there will be negative social consequences which will inhibit his/her freedom. Even if we disregard punitive measures (people would stop hanging out and helping the sociopath for example.) So usually people, out of their own self-interest try to do what others feel is moral. Even more motivating though, is to have them truly believe that moral. I think Frued was the one who came up with the ID, Ego, and Super-Ego natures of the psyche found in all humans. The ID being the impulsive nature of humans, the ego being the reaction to negative and/or positive stimuli by others, and then super-ego being when you truly believe in something morally right or wrong. By just blatantly telling somebody something is wrong and they will be punished when they do it, you are only stimulating their ego, while when you teach them the effects of their wrongdoings you are stimulating both their ego and super-ego, and that is much more powerful. I don't murder people not solely because I am afraid that I will go to prison, but because I morally believe it is wrong, for example. In the absence of said punishment, I would still likely not murder people.
2. I don't propose we do nothing to violent criminals (those who steal, murder, or inflict damages onto others property/enslave people.) I think non-violent/victemless crimes are quite a different matter though, and the effects of them are much more subtle.
3. What I am arguing is that the punishment should be with the endeavor to make people better not to punish them for punishments sake, or to appease your own negative emotions (which I think the latter describes this scenario.) When the punishment doesn't fit the crime, you are harming the person more than you are helping them. In this case, the parent wasn't in tune with how much this would affect his daughter's psyche, and the effect is that instead of having a daughter whom he has set on the right path, he has no daughter at all. Publicly punishing any teenage girl will likely have this effect, regardless of their mental status beforehand.
