My Stance Part II
Out of all of the premises outlined in your opener, this is one of the few that I agree with. Human-Kind tends to have a follow the leader mentality which has caused great discord throughout history.
Agreed.
This is where our views on the subject diverge. While I view the majority with contempt, I think through logic and reason we can progress as a society. History has shown this idea to ring true. If we look at humanity during the Stone and Neolithic ages, we annihilated entire races and murder was seen as the norm. We progress at an incredibly slow rate; however, we do progress. The solution is not abandonment but thoughtful and intelligent discourse with the opposition.
You are talking about humanity as a whole, and I agree that we are slowly progressing as a society and as a species, hence me saying “for the foreseeable future.” But there will always be outliers. No matter how advanced our civilization becomes, as long as we allow people free will and individuality, there will always be idiots. They will never go away.
And in very few cases do these idiots change their ways. You cannot reason with savages, and any attempt to do so will fail more often than not. There’s no need to waste time on them, even if redemption was possible. They should be made to obey through force, or if that doesn’t work, then human experiments are the next step.
Just imagine: armies of people at disposal and you wouldn’t even have to pay their salaries. You wouldn’t even have to keep them alive; they would entirely disposable, and you could command them to do your bidding as you wish. The fear of death and torture would keep them in line. And human experiments on them would skip the process of animal experiments. Medicine, robotic limbs, genetic and cellular manipulation etc. could be tested straight on humans.
So why would you even want to do “thoughtful and intelligent discourse” with them?
This is where our views on the subject diverge. While I view the majority with contempt, I think through logic and reason we can progress as a society. History has shown this idea to ring true. If we look at humanity during the Stone and Neolithic ages, we annihilated entire races and murder was seen as the norm. We progress at an incredibly slow rate; however, we do progress. The solution is not abandonment but thoughtful and intelligent discourse with the opposition.
Of course there is potential in them. That is why we must attempt to discipline them. School bullies are a mild case of idiocy, and their offenses are minor and often born of being bullied themselves or some other reason that is most of the time relatively easy to cure. But if they bully simply because it makes them happy; because they’re sadists or sociopaths; and if disciplining them doesn’t work; if it is in their very nature to be a hinderance to society; then, and only then, would the policies I describe come into play.
In the case of Sinious, I do not know what his past has involved, but if he learned from his mistakes relatively quickly (in the span of a few months) then he would be forgiven. But if he was a nuisance to those around him every single day of every single year he spent in school, actively looking to cause trouble for the sake of it and enjoying it, then he’d have lost his right to learn and to be treated as a human being. Off to slave labor camps he would go.
And then there’s murderers and rapists; I really wonder how they contribute to the progress of society. You apparently think it’s foolish to say they don’t, so I’m curious to hear your case.
This outlook is not only morally bankrupt, but it is not economically or practically tenable. From a practical perspective, recidivism rises, incarceration rises, and 15-20% of the prison is wrought with the mentally ill. (sources for these statements can be found down below.) The statistics below show a sharp incline of prison incarnation and recidivism after the prison system shifted towards punishment in the 1970s. The economic costs of such a system would be astronomical. Your plan would dwarf the costs of the overpriced system of today. As a fellow determinist, I am sure you recognize the moral flaws in such a system. If we are, but a product of our environment and biology to punish someone so horribly is ethically suspect. This system also does not account for the numerous other variables that are responsible for the crime committed. Such a black and white view of the world is counterproductive in discussions such as these.
Morally bankrupt? How absurd. It is the very definition of justice that what you do to others they can also do to you; equivalent exchange, if you will. This applies in both positive and negative situations. And if you pity these individuals who have consciously committed heinous crimes, don’t. Save your pity for those who deserve it.
Also, while the economic cost is a fair point, it begs proving. I do not understand how my plan would be more expensive than the current system. Albeit my experience with prisons and jails is not extensive by any means, so I may be wrong here, but all you would need to carry out the punishment of a knife murderer, would be a single knife, which is not expensive. Similarly, you don’t require much energy to start a fire if a pyromaniac needs to be burned to death.
Recidivism and incarceration wouldn’t be a problem either, since, well, murderers would be dead, and the more people who are exposed as idiots, the better, since only the normal and the wise would be left. It’s about quality here, not quantity. If idiots continue to commit crimes, then they would be forced into slave labor or killed off.
And what “other variables” are you referring to?
Teaching a child not to bully through such authoritarian methods does not instruct him as to why said action is wrong. I know from personal experience threats simply make me detest the threatener rather than rethink the ethical qualms. Abusing a child in such tenuous stages of their lives causes indolence, higher crime rates, and a damaged individual.
"Child maltreatment roughly doubles the probability that an individual engages in many types of crime. This is true even if we compare twins, one of whom was maltreated when the other one was not."
- National Bureau of Economic Research.
Adults who were physically abused, sexually abused, or severely neglected as children were significantly more likely to be unemployed, living below the poverty line, and using social services than people without a history of childhood maltreatment. Having experienced more than one type of maltreatment increased these risks further.
- National Institute of Mental Health
Mistreating a child does not teach them a life lasting lesson. If your schooling policies were in place, I would be in slave labor. You are trying to distinguish human nature and control thought. You also put the teacher on a pedestal acting as if her proclamations are law. I have experienced many unfair teachers in the past, and I am acutely aware of their unjust behavior.
It’s not about ethics here, but rather what’s practical, and bullying does not serve a positive purpose to my knowledge, so extinguishing it is mandatory. But if you want to bring ethics into it, then the bully would experience the same suffering s/he has inflicted. S/he would feel like what the victim feels like, and if the school staff make a point about that, then perhaps if the child is smart, s/he will indeed start thinking about the “ethical qualms”. Also, both your quotes refer to long-term abuse. Being hit once or twice does not leave them scarred for life; that’s ridiculous. And yes, I at least have that much hope in humanity that the children understand that if they behave like normal kids, they’ll be fine. And if they somehow are dumb enough to get beaten up every day, ask yourself this: Does society really need such a moron?