IDENTITY=Behavior There are no CAUSELESS crimes or innocent evils

by Terry 89 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  stapler99

  I don't believe in fundamental concepts of "evil" or "the scales of justice". I support punishing people who murder, rape or steal because of the practical effects, i.e. deterrence to others and preventing the offender from re-offending. When people commit acts like drunk driving then there must be some deficiency in that person. Maybe we can call that deficiency "sin". When considering whether these people should be locked up for life or banned from driving from life one might ask, have we managed to remove these deficiencies in such a manner that the offender won't commit the same actions again? As well as that there are cost issues, such as the cost of keeping a petty thief behind bars for his whole life. The cost issue, along with the harm you are doing to the criminal have to be balanced with the benefits such as deterrence.

  If someone shoplifts a small item, and they are fined or gaoled for several months, then after the judicial process hass completed the flaws in that person that helped to shoplift in the first place may not have been extirpated. I wouldn't support a life sentence though, because of compassion towards the criminal.
• 

  trevor

  We follow our whims when we are young unless we are stopped or sidetracked. Then, we change our strategy. We either become clever and deceitful to get our way or we conform and become group-think automatons. It is our essential character which makes us one or the other.

  I consider this to be a very accurate statement. The main motivation for what person we are is our own nature.

  The whole debate about free will versus determinism is never ending, like a dog chasing its tail. It is too complicated for me to get into right now. What I would say is that although many factors influence our behaviour we are at some level aware of what we are doing. We also have a good idea of the consequences that our behaviour will lead to if we are held accountable. To this degree we ourselves decide whether risk outweighs reward and then act accordingly.

  To those who separate the sinner from the sin, If our body commits a crime in the physical world, then our body will be locked up in the physical world. If we choose to, we can separate our self from the sin and ponder on what we have learned in a prison cell.

  People who do good works do not expect society to separate them from their charity and rationalise away the merit of their deeds. They are viewed as good people not people who do good because they are unable to help themselves.
• 

  Anti-Christ

  For example. When I was 20 I was very very shy. I was a Momma's boy with no father figure. I did not play sports or compete. I was frightened around men or social situations. Yet, when I was placed in Jail and subsequently, Federal Prison I was able to endure and propser even in the face of attempted rape. I did not so much choose all this as I discovered what I was made of when faced with certain options. I became what I was.

  I get what your saying, I think. We don't choose the life we are given but trough what we experience we achieve our personality. So wen two people have a similar life but one becomes a criminal and the other does not, I believe it's about choice and personality. You don't choose your life or the things that happen to you but we can choose what we are going to do with what we learn.
• 

  sammielee24

  Guess it depends on how a person chooses to fashion their own identity based on their own view of what those words all mean. It would depend on the value oneself puts on a collective society based on that person own approach to the world. Just as one person insists on straight and strict accountability for all ones action, regardless of age, circumstance or gender - so is that person making that judgement based on their own past circumstances. The question is - who is right? Which is better?

  A child of 3 years old that finds a gun in the drawer of the nightstand and takes it out to play with it, certainly does not understand the meaning of death and forever. He accidently shoots his mother and kills her. A causeless crime? Of course not - but lets go far enough back to see how we can choose to place the blame. First the child caused death by shooting the gun. The gun was there because the father left it there. The father bought the gun because he believed that was the way to protect his family. The government of his country educated the man to believe that this is his right and he is responsiblie for doing this because they put it in their constitution. The government of the country put it in the consititution because they came from other countries that had rules they did not like.

  A man who steals a loaf of bread and then hands it over to his 5 children to eat because they are starving certainly has committed a crime by many standards. But what is the bigger crime? That a man would be reduced to stealing a loaf of bread in order to stop his children crying from hunger - or putting the man in jail for 10 years because he stole the bread and subsequently leaving the 5 children without care and watching them die? Which is the crime, who is innocent and who really becomes evil?

  It all depends on what type of society we all choose to live in. sammieswife.
• 

  Brother Apostate

  Case in point # 2: Babies born to drug addicted mothers. We can say with near certainty these babies will grow up into socially maladjusted individuals and have a high propensity for criminal activity. We know their neural systems regulating behavioural control have been completely messed up due to in utero drug exposure. Now, are they to blame for this? Who does society hold accountable for any criminal activity they ultimately may engage in? Are they morally responsible for their actions, when their behavioural disorders were pre-determined before even being born?

  Urban legend continuously mis-reported on.

  The Truth:

  http://rationalrevolution.net/war/crack_baby_myth.htm

  http://www.slate.com/id/2124885/

  http://www.briancbennett.com/history/crackbaby.htm

  http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/drugs/crbabymyth.html

  http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/drugs/crackbaby.html

  BA- You shall know the truth...
• 

  OUTLAW

  Terry..Good Morning from the Great White North!..It would really depend on the situation.....For a kid who did something stupid..Counseling and possibly a minor punishment,like grounding.....For a criminal that molests children or rapes..A bullet in the head.....Those are two extremes..Niether can be handled in the same manor...OUTLAW
• 

  Terry

  Do you think we are destined, then? Much like a seed has a destiny for only one result? Is there no averting destiny? Can nothing be changed, even by "accident"?

  Personally, I think we are free, and we discover who we are becoming. We are what we are, as you say, but there are other elements which make me think that our 'destiny' is something we would have to agree to. If that makes sense...

  Destiny? Wrong word choice!

  When you plant an acorn you don't think of the resulting oak tree as destiny do you? Of course not.

  But, our DNA is an acorn (of sorts) and what we grow into (physically as well as temperamentally, etc.) is not a surprise either.

  You see, you can damage a tree while growing (or abuse a child) and you'll still get an oak tree....with scars. The scars don't make the tree less an oak.

  A cat with three legs is still a cat. The character of the cat doesn't change. They still like delicious mice and fear barking dogs.

  Separate out the Freudian mumbo-jumbo we've been exposed to all our lives and a fresh wind blows through.

  Freud gave us a tidy myth. Whatever happens to us in childhood determines who we become. Utter nonsense.
• 

  Terry

  If a child is told that it is thick, stupid, lazy etc as it is raised, how would you expect that child to feel about itself as it grows into adulthood?

  Are you refuting that enviroment has an impact on personality or a persons perception of life?

  Pure Freud.

  Enviornment has an impact. But, short of having an anvil fall on your head and damage your brain you have the same personality after encountering obstacles.

  Ever see a plant growing through concrete? The concrete is an obstacle. But, the plant must grow as it will not survive to be the plant it must become unless it goes through.

  if you just lump the person and crime together you are not allowing for the individual to change their behaviour. And to clarify I mean change their behaviour,

  If somebody molests my young daughter an outrageous harm has been done. (God forbid!)

  Now, changing the behavior of the molester in the future devolves down to two things. 1.The cost and effort of trying to insure this same offense does not again occur 2. The risk that it might despite all efforts to the contrary.

  In other words, why risk treatment and release when confinement is the absolute solution? Do you know how many crimes are committed by recidivist "treated" and relapsed offenders?

  Once the neighbor's dog bites me I don't need assurances he is a good doggy to make me call Animal Control officers.
• 

  Hellrider

  Terry:

  People speak about "free will" without really examining what they are saying. It is not an absolute. It is a very, very narrow and dangerous mental construct much misunderstood.

  We follow our whims when we are young unless we are stopped or sidetracked. Then, we change our strategy. We either become clever and deceitful to get our way or we conform and become group-think automatons. It is our essential character which makes us one or the other.

  Rare is the individual. Rare is the self-identity which understands how to modify whims, longings and desires well enough to order them sequentially according to social norms without trading one's volition for crumbs.

  We can want, but; we can't decide what our wants are. We can postpone satisfaction and delay gratification, but; we can't sublimate ourselves into an authentic alternative personality.

  In that case, why are they responsible for their actions. And responsible how? In a an absolute "moral" sense? Obviously not (according to your view), as the "right-doers" have only more intelligently adapted to social norms, social constructs!

  But I don`t give a shit about "social norms", social constructs, and if that is all morality is, if that is the basis for how you deem people to be "accountable" for their acts, then your condemnation is worth nothing.

  I`m glad you cleared up your view on morality and "free will". If "wrong-doers" are merely trespassing some social construct, I don`t consider your condemnation of the persona in the above mentioned hypothetical situation to mean anything anymore. If all he did was trespass some social construct, I don`t consider that to be "wrong", at least not in an absolute moral sense, because according to your view, there is no such thing. Why you then insist on "accountability", I do not know.
• 

  Terry

  When society judges that an individuals behaviour is wrong/evil/criminal the individual is punished. But the question I ask of you is this; Is that individual entitled to the opportunity to become re-taught?

  You ask the correct question.

  I answer by asking you a question.

  Why is entitlement your focus and where does it spring from?

  Entitlement is the guarantee for access to benefits due to rights, or by agreement through law.

  Why would society pass a law demanding benefits to persons who damage or destroy the lives of others?

  You see, there are creatures with poison glands and fangs amongst us. All the re-education and stroking imaginable doesn't change the nature of these beasts.

  Seigfried and Roy found out that cuddly tigers with years of training can eat your head.

  So too with offenders.

  I say deny destructive people the opportunity to eat your head.