sc94597 said:
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. |
i understand where you are going with that but my point is simply that everyone is going to disregard that drive to be "moral" from time to time ( even if it may harm them ) to varying degrees whether it is to the extent of cheating on a significant other or shooting a bunch of people in a church
and i do think that while people are motivated by selffish self interested desires sometimes that they are also driven by the altruistic desires to help their peers and the environment... that people have both of these conflicting drives thorughout their lives and whether they do "good" or "bad" at a particular point depends on which drive is more dominant at that time
"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. "
and i agree that the parent here went too far but again everyone's perception of what punishment's are acceptable for specific crimes is going to vary
he probably felt that the punishment really was appropriate and i highly doubt that he intended for the girl to suffer to the point where she felt the need to kill herself







