>Stirling Westrup made some enlightened comments about how even the most
>cruel and sadistic individuals in the future will be seen as "sick" and not
>evil and worthy of severe punishments as in our day.
How do you know the comments are "enlightened" if you are clearly unaware of
the thought processes that went into the proposal?
>I do feel that some
>people commit heinous crimes at least partially from mental illness and
>"psychological demons" while others are essentially healthy and simply
>choose the wrong choice.
It's simpler that that - clouding the situation with dodgy contemporary
ideals such as the labelling of socially incompatible individuals as "ill"
or "diseased" will not help. As Descartes said "I am what I am". He knew
that he was Descartes, had the faculties and "choices" of Descartes and
nobody or thing else. Same with you. You do what you do and ONLY what you
do. Righteousness is irrelevant. A pointless crusade followed by fools who
need to be told what to think and propagate this "wisdom" to others for
socio-sensory gratification (seeming wise attracts mates!). Someone rapes my
wife, I'll want to kill them - not due to a cosmically significant "floaty"
righteousness, just because that was my reaction. I did not decide to have
this reaction - I discovered that I had this reaction to such situations. I
can decide to attempt to block this urge, but then where did the urge to
decide to block the first urge come from? Within parts of "me" over which
the consciousness that "I" consider my "self" has no control. The "decision"
to block this particular urge may have come from somebody or something else,
but still the attachment of "authority" to such external agents had it's
origins in our incorruptible, predetermined base motivations.
>Should all criminals be seen as "ill" and be treated and not punished? I
am
>not that enlightened yet and may never be, especially for crimes like
murder
>and rape. Perhaps treatment and punishment can be fused together.
It depends on what you are trying to achieve. Again I see the magic word
"should" - the mark of a follower. What "should" I do?
Well I say who "should" define the "shoulds"? Well, here in this text it's
me, and I say you "should" think for yourself. On all issues. Not just those
that haven't been flagged as untouchable by some self-appointed "authority".
So, are you trying to cause pain in the offender's consciousness as vengence
(with the highly suss assumption that the consciousness is the central
control structure of the mind) or train the offender's intelligence against
the action you object to?
I would argue that training the mind is fair enough, but not with the side
effect of torture. In future, with perhaps alternative methods of mind
control, we can beat these errant units into shape using non-painful
methods.
My personal conclusion on this subject is the modify or banish idea. A
leader of a social order could put a question to an offending member - Be
modified or leave this society. If the individual had a problem with
modification, he can go - if not, then a simple painless modification would
surely be the best solution to the problem in hand.
What do you think about this?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:04:03 MDT