You sure do. But failed to provide an ARGUMENT! :bugeye:
On revenge
- Thread starter Syzygys
- Start date
You sure do. But failed to provide an ARGUMENT! :bugeye:
No, but drivers in that neighbourhood certainly would drive MUCH SLOWER!!!
Kids, this is a no-brainer. Analogy: training a puppy. If you let your puppy (or kid) to get away with everything, because of your stupid notion of forgiveness, he will never learn anything. Well, eventually he will when he gets out into real life and he might just die in the process (slight exagertion).
And all because you were not able to keep him in order. The same with revenge. Justice and punishment keeps the sinners in order.
Bells
Staff member
Why? Because they might somehow know that if they hit someone and drive away leaving that person to die, the person's mother will kill them? Do you honestly think that is a deterrent? For example, in some countries, if you kill someone, your punishment is death. Yet murders continue in such countries. Why?
Does it? And so if someone exacts revenge and kills the "sinner", do they themselves become a "sinner"? Or are they somehow absolved of their crimes because they sought revenge? Now say the avenger is now seen to be a "sinner" by a relative of the original "sinner". Wouldn't that relative be allowed to seek revenge? So where exactly would it all end?
Lets look at the case of Mohammed Bijeh as one example. He was the serial killer in Iran who was accused and found guilty of having raped and slaughtered up to 16 boys. Now this man was publicly hanged and before his hanging, the parents and families of his victims were allowed to exact their revenge on him. Do you think this has somehow stopped all murders and rapes in Iran? Somehow I doubt it.
Do you think other sinners have been kept in order through this public act of revenge and justice by the families of the victims and the law itself?
Because categorical imperative > talion ftw.
My philosophy teacher. In his bedroom. With a whip.
...
j/k unfortunately
That's the stupidest question in the history of humanity.
And apparently one you don't have an answer to.
Sure. We don't know (can not) how many murders are NOT commited because of fear of punishment.
But you are right. We should just absolve all murderers, because what's the point of punishment?
Of course not, because if it was done in the justice system, it is called doing their job.
See the answer to the first question. Death penalty only works as a deterrent if it is actually used frequently, not like in the USA. That doesn't mean there will be no murders....
Let's look at the case of the Green River Killer. He only killed 50+ women, and the justice department made a deal with him, thus he didn't get executed. Do you think all those families feel they got justice?? Or closure??
Last edited:
Let's ask the families of the victims. I am sure they feel BETTER. And yes, sinners are kept in order. Here is a test: Announce that from tomorrow there will be no punishment of ANY crime. See what happens....
Oh, Jesus' tits!
Who ever said civilization was easy? If you're unhappy, opt out. Live how you wish, and leave the fruits of civilization to those who choose to participate. Have you never heard of the Law of Thelema? "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law."
If you find civilization insufficient, either work for its improvement or do something else entirely. It's not like you must take part.
Baron Max said:
Who ever said civilization was easy? If you're unhappy, opt out. Live how you wish, and leave the fruits of civilization to those who choose to participate. Have you never heard of the Law of Thelema? "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law."
If you find civilization insufficient, either work for its improvement or do something else entirely. It's not like you must take part.
Nope, Tiassa, as nice as that sounds, one can NOT opt out of civilization. And if you think so, then you don't know much about life or property rights or hunting laws or camping laws or payment of taxes or ....... all the things that civilization has forced upon us ....and that we simply can't escape.
Baron Max
Wrong, Baron
Yes, one can. It might seem otherwise, but there's a reason humans have evolved to be social creatures: civilization is easier than going it alone.
At some point, other humans simply become natural competition. I'm sure you understand that concept, at least, since it carries some weight, anyway, among the alleged civilized.
Baron Max said:
Yes, one can. It might seem otherwise, but there's a reason humans have evolved to be social creatures: civilization is easier than going it alone.
At some point, other humans simply become natural competition. I'm sure you understand that concept, at least, since it carries some weight, anyway, among the alleged civilized.
Name some land area that is NOT owned by someone or some organization or controlled by the government that will allow you to live there and hunt the animals there. Name one such place in the USA or Canada. ...don't know about other places, but I wouldn't want to go there anyway!
Baron Max
Chin up, Baron
In all honesty, Baron, whether it's the concept in general or your contempt for me, you don't seem prepared to grasp it. However, let's give it a try. First, regardless of the chuckle about the US and Canada, it does not matter who owns what or what is permitted when you have withdrawn from civilization. Secondly, civilization is an abstraction given authority by its participants. Third, attempting to exploit civilization while withdrawing from it still leaves you dependent on civilization.
You don't have to see other people as anything but other organisms competing for resources. You don't have to actually give a damn except where self-preservation is concerned. And here you would probably need to take a lesson from nature, which is the last point I'll throw in right now:
It wouldn't matter what you want. Civilization is what lifted humanity to the luxury of having morals and favorites and the ability to choose the fish instead of the steak. Without conventions of civilization, humans are back to what we need.
This is why I don't withdraw from civilization. Really, I think civilized society is screwed up compared to its own espoused values and goals. But I get more out of life trying to figure out how to express and solve the problem than I do from opting out.
I have a roof over my head tonight. And the weather's effing awful. I'll put up with a lot from civilization for that. Something a little less sanctimonious, perhaps? Try this one: I smoke pot; f@ck the government. When I figure out how to explain the reality of marijuana to the people who fear it so greatly, I'll be sure to let everybody know. In the meantime, I take certain risks, and that's the way it goes. Life is.
So if civilization gets you down, but opting out doesn't seem palatable, then toughen up and take a few on the chin while figuring out how to fix what's wrong with civilization. Given that a majority of civilized society is dissatisfied with some aspect of civlized life, what's the difference between trying to make things better and simply giving up? It's a slow process, and we'll probably not see its completion in our lives. But at least we'll have tried. And if enough people choose to work to make things better, at least some progress will be made.
Baron Max said:
In all honesty, Baron, whether it's the concept in general or your contempt for me, you don't seem prepared to grasp it. However, let's give it a try. First, regardless of the chuckle about the US and Canada, it does not matter who owns what or what is permitted when you have withdrawn from civilization. Secondly, civilization is an abstraction given authority by its participants. Third, attempting to exploit civilization while withdrawing from it still leaves you dependent on civilization.
You don't have to see other people as anything but other organisms competing for resources. You don't have to actually give a damn except where self-preservation is concerned. And here you would probably need to take a lesson from nature, which is the last point I'll throw in right now:
It wouldn't matter what you want. Civilization is what lifted humanity to the luxury of having morals and favorites and the ability to choose the fish instead of the steak. Without conventions of civilization, humans are back to what we need.
This is why I don't withdraw from civilization. Really, I think civilized society is screwed up compared to its own espoused values and goals. But I get more out of life trying to figure out how to express and solve the problem than I do from opting out.
I have a roof over my head tonight. And the weather's effing awful. I'll put up with a lot from civilization for that. Something a little less sanctimonious, perhaps? Try this one: I smoke pot; f@ck the government. When I figure out how to explain the reality of marijuana to the people who fear it so greatly, I'll be sure to let everybody know. In the meantime, I take certain risks, and that's the way it goes. Life is.
So if civilization gets you down, but opting out doesn't seem palatable, then toughen up and take a few on the chin while figuring out how to fix what's wrong with civilization. Given that a majority of civilized society is dissatisfied with some aspect of civlized life, what's the difference between trying to make things better and simply giving up? It's a slow process, and we'll probably not see its completion in our lives. But at least we'll have tried. And if enough people choose to work to make things better, at least some progress will be made.
Well, actually it does, because it makes it far less likely for you to be able to withdraw. If you decide to build your log cabin in the middle of a state forest, you'll find out very soon how much "they" are prepared to listen when you tell them their laws no longer apply to you.
Progress for whom?
The history of civilisation is basically one of things changing to make (albeit slowly) the majority as comfortable as possible.Whether or not this form of progress is for the best is debatable - which largely depends on your philosophical outlook.
(Insert Title Here)
Do we negotiate, bargain, tell, or explain to coyotes, tigers, &c.? Do we listen to their reasons?
If the withdrawal is partial, one might expect the issues you raise. But a complete withdrawal from civilization is a return to the wild, and other humans are no different than bears, wolves, or other animals that can hurt you.
In order to nudge a little back toward the topic, I would question whether the majority in Iraq is as comfortable as posible, and thus point out the effects of revenge on society.
More directly, though, I would ask you to consider how many, say, working-class Americans resent being reminded that their luxury depends on the poverty of a greater number. People working two jobs and living from paycheck to paycheck might scoff at the idea of "luxury". Yet, as with one of my earlier points, "It comes down to a question of what kind of society we wish to live in", and we Americans choose this way. If "the history of civilisation is basically one of things changing to make the majority as comfortable as possible", it is because humans choose that it should be so. And I suppose it is, in a way, progress, since the greatest comfort has, throughout the history of human civilization, been enjoyed by a very small minority.
There is, of course, the issue of what "progress" requires. Just as some people's definition of equality requires that they have greater rights and authority than others, so, too, can the detriment of the human species be claimed as a progressive goal. Personally, I go with species. The ultimate goal, the only way to actually answer some of the abstract questions that haunt humanity (e.g. God, death, the Universe itself) is to remain a part of the Universe forever, or until the end of time. Inasmuch as "the history of civilization is one of (comfort)", providing equal access to that comfort is about the only way I can think of to prevent the kind of petty squabbling that leads to the unfortunate events and circumstances humanity wills upon itself that have the effect of interrupting, delaying, or dismantling progress. This is, of course, a complicated process, and one that will last beyond my lifetime.
Compared to a self-centered civilization, in which each person strives against all others for individual satisfaction--see Baron's post, "... we aren't permitted the freedoms to do as we wish. Our freedoms to seek justice have been taken from us ..."--and in which revenge therefore makes sense, the progress I would seek bestows comfort to as many people as possible instead of reserving it for the fewest.
Fenris Wolf said:
Do we negotiate, bargain, tell, or explain to coyotes, tigers, &c.? Do we listen to their reasons?
If the withdrawal is partial, one might expect the issues you raise. But a complete withdrawal from civilization is a return to the wild, and other humans are no different than bears, wolves, or other animals that can hurt you.
In order to nudge a little back toward the topic, I would question whether the majority in Iraq is as comfortable as posible, and thus point out the effects of revenge on society.
More directly, though, I would ask you to consider how many, say, working-class Americans resent being reminded that their luxury depends on the poverty of a greater number. People working two jobs and living from paycheck to paycheck might scoff at the idea of "luxury". Yet, as with one of my earlier points, "It comes down to a question of what kind of society we wish to live in", and we Americans choose this way. If "the history of civilisation is basically one of things changing to make the majority as comfortable as possible", it is because humans choose that it should be so. And I suppose it is, in a way, progress, since the greatest comfort has, throughout the history of human civilization, been enjoyed by a very small minority.
There is, of course, the issue of what "progress" requires. Just as some people's definition of equality requires that they have greater rights and authority than others, so, too, can the detriment of the human species be claimed as a progressive goal. Personally, I go with species. The ultimate goal, the only way to actually answer some of the abstract questions that haunt humanity (e.g. God, death, the Universe itself) is to remain a part of the Universe forever, or until the end of time. Inasmuch as "the history of civilization is one of (comfort)", providing equal access to that comfort is about the only way I can think of to prevent the kind of petty squabbling that leads to the unfortunate events and circumstances humanity wills upon itself that have the effect of interrupting, delaying, or dismantling progress. This is, of course, a complicated process, and one that will last beyond my lifetime.
Compared to a self-centered civilization, in which each person strives against all others for individual satisfaction--see Baron's post, "... we aren't permitted the freedoms to do as we wish. Our freedoms to seek justice have been taken from us ..."--and in which revenge therefore makes sense, the progress I would seek bestows comfort to as many people as possible instead of reserving it for the fewest.
Bells
Staff member
So you equate personal revenge with punishment?
Or are you looking at the revenge of society in general in laws enacted which deal with each crime specifically and each criminal in a likewise manner? Lets not forget, justice as denoted by laws are not there for revenge. You are getting the two mixed up.
For example, if someone kills an orphan (someone who has absolutely no relatives or friends), and the murderer is tried, found guilty and jailed for his crime. Who exactly was avenged in this trial and sentence? The victim has no family to speak of. So they're out. The victim himself? Well he's dead so he can't exactly enjoy the gleeful feeling he might have felt to see his murderer jailed.
No. When the criminal justice system jails someone for a crime, it is done as punishment for their crime. Revenge does not come into the equation.
That's not for me to say. I don't know any of them personally. But again, you are equating the crimininal justice system with revenge. It is not.
Do you think they "feel better"? I doubt it. Their son's were raped, tortured and mutilated before being murdered in the most henious ways imaginable. I doubt the mother who placed the noose around her son's killer's neck felt any better about doing so. Her son is still dead. Sure she may have felt pleasure in causing pain to the killer of her son, but better? I doubt it.
In the case of the mother who's daughter was killed in a hit and run. Had she been allowed by law to kill the killer, it would not make people slow down. It is against the law to hit someone and leave them to die without stopping and rendering aid. People do it anyway. It is against the law to speed, but people do it regardless. But lets go back to Iran. The case of this killer is a perfect case of revenge and your claim that it would act as a deterrent. The laws in Iran are quite strict and severe. But the laws are still broken and murders still occur. Even though they allow the families of the victims to exact their revenge in public executions.
....I thought that's what I was saying. The only difference being that, seeing as in this case it's a human intrusion rather than an animal one, they'd probably incarcerate rather than shoot on sight. I'm not sure what would be worse for an anti-social human.
Actually, a withdrawal from civilisation implies nothing of the sort.
Firstly, one would assume that in withdrawing from something, one was once a part of it and its influence cannot be erased completely.
Secondly, the idea of reverting to a wild state simply because one has withdrawn from society is quite patently ridiculous. Some might more than others, but by far most would simply become hermits given the opportunity and penchant to do so.
Are you being pedantic out of obtuseness? We were talking about withdrawing from this society, not becoming the Yowie.
You're coming close to answering your own question with this:
Or perhaps what Americans (the west in general, in spite of minor philosphical differences) understand and believe to be comfort?
I'm not excluding you, Tiassa. You too want the middle east to be, eventually, just like us.
Your real point of disagreement is in the timeframe, and the method by which it eventually occurs.
The greatest comfort, yes. But the mean is becoming closer to that upper level with every generation.
What does evolution do?
It ensures survival of the species - by which, one can extrapolate that having as many survive as possible is a primary requirement.
Have you considered that in doing so, our social evolution has ensured that the human species is perhaps not what it could be due to that very factor?
Evolution is a blind force. It does not consider consequences.
Humans do - but we are constrained by biological imperatives ensuring our species survival, not our progress as we might imagine it to be.
... Or at least, as I might.
Be nice to see how it all turns out. Although there are many days when I think immortality would leave me feeling spiritually ill until the end of time.
A frightening thought.
That, Tiassa, is how you have evolved to think - and how the human race is continuing to evolve. Speculating on the result of that is going off on a tangent I'll leave alone.
All others? Or those who strive against us?
Minor points of disagreement between the like-minded are of little consequence.
I'm seeing the result of many more living in comfort than ever before, every day, all around.
It's not pleasant viewing. Civilisation is an abstract thought, an idea. It exists only because we have wished it into existence. It is not a natural imperative in itself - it is more an outgrowth of an imperative, one which has proved beneficial to the species in general.
Human thought only determines the form which civilisation has taken and will take in the future... and so far, the dominant type has yet to be completely established.
Each form of civilisation is a gossamer veil thrown over an animal whose only thought is to survive. Below the veils is turbulence, and the form in which civilisation survives will be the one whose veil was the strongest.
What a nice way of saying that we're all just a bunch of vicious animals held in check by laws, rules, social standards, cops, courts and the threat of jail or other punishments! ...LOL! I like to think of society as nothing more than the bars of the jails that we're all forced to live in.
Good one, Fenris, but I'd have said it using different, less-nice words!
Baron Max
Caught up in a dream
A complete withdrawal, yes. One can certainly attempt to build a new civilization. True, however, that at least an expectation of civilization would remain. But there are plenty of "hermits" who have withdrawn at least partially from society in my area. They're called by many names: homeless, bums, beggars, &c.
To split a hair: I would hope that other societies could do better by social evolution, democracy, &c., than we Americans have. I would hope Americans could do better.
The gap would close more quickly if the comfortable minority didn't work actively to wrench it open.
While I greatly appreciate the questions and considerations you raise, I am having difficulty at the momnt identifying the relevant strains. Let me assure you, this is likely my own internal issue. Thus disclaimed, I choose the following approach to the issue: The more we learn, the more we can, to a point, choose to affect the conditions under which we evolve. To use an extreme example for simplicity's sake:
When our progress stops, so, too, will our species. We might hold on for a long time, but humanity will be in decline. Or, at least, so it seems to me.
I agree entirely. I'll even make the oxymoronic observation that immortality would probably lead to killer boredom.
Perhaps it is tangential. But what of the notion that speculating on the result is one of the things that makes us human?
On the one hand, yes, all others. To the other, the magnitude of disagreement is relative. I come back to the point that it is all in what we choose for ourselves, including how we define the word "ourselves". On the one hand, we're human, and in this together. That is a fact of nature. To the other, though, we are American or British or Iranian, &c.; we are Christian or Muslim or atheist, &c.; there are any number of arbitrary divisions we construct between our diverse selves. This is a fact of our choices. Beyond it all, though, we are the human species, all of us together. Which, of course, leads me back to the assertion that nature itself ought to be enough to contend with.
So am I, but I would present the difference as analogous to the politics of the American economy. Many people say the economy is in good shape, that the numbers say so. I heard the assertion today that the American economy is presently as good as any economic body has achieved in history. But others rightly point out that the numbers aren't translating into individual benefit the way it should. And, furthermore, Americans are working themselves sick; that's how we get the numbers to be what they are.
I think civilization in the abstract is a natural imperative: humans are social creatures and have been as long as they've existed. It is how we've evolved. And no, it's not necessarily pretty.
Okay, I will concede the possibility of the phrase "an outgrowth of an imperative". Civilization is different from society inasmuch as a society need not be civilized. But ... the difference seems thin.
To look back to your words just before that:
The fact that humans can analyze, understand, project, and have opinions about our future is part of what makes us human. Rather than competing blindly like other animals, we ought to be using our faculties to figure the present and future. Nature is not extraneous: our ability to choose forms of civilization is a tool; it did not arise arbitrarily. It helps us survive and prosper as a species.
Think of art. There are plenty of useless artists. But art itself is not useless, else it would not have a place in human evolution.
Fenris Wolf said:
A complete withdrawal, yes. One can certainly attempt to build a new civilization. True, however, that at least an expectation of civilization would remain. But there are plenty of "hermits" who have withdrawn at least partially from society in my area. They're called by many names: homeless, bums, beggars, &c.
To split a hair: I would hope that other societies could do better by social evolution, democracy, &c., than we Americans have. I would hope Americans could do better.
The gap would close more quickly if the comfortable minority didn't work actively to wrench it open.
While I greatly appreciate the questions and considerations you raise, I am having difficulty at the momnt identifying the relevant strains. Let me assure you, this is likely my own internal issue. Thus disclaimed, I choose the following approach to the issue: The more we learn, the more we can, to a point, choose to affect the conditions under which we evolve. To use an extreme example for simplicity's sake:
Consider, please, two potential evolutionary paths. As I've said, I tend to think in terms of species; it is the basis of my moral and social considerations. Imagine on the one hand a future in which the human endeavor manages to get off this rock and spread out through the Universe. Imagine that in a million years, humanity is evolving under conditions that no single cataclysm, save the end of the Universe itself, can erase humanity. The conditions under which humanity would evole in, say, a million years, will be considerably diffrent than if, to the other, we've undergone a nuclear war and spent generations recovering. If opinions can be axiomatic, I would assert that nature itself ought to be enough to contend with. And while, yes, humans are indeed a part of nature, the stumbling blocks we invent for ourselves--e.g. polluting our habitat, religious squabbles, economic stratification, general injustice, &c.--are rather ridiculous, as the Sumatra-Andaman earthquake and resulting tsunami, or Hurricane Katrina seem to demonstrate. In terms of the topic, wars and revenge and such are a sick joke compared to disease, earthquakes, comets, and such.
When our progress stops, so, too, will our species. We might hold on for a long time, but humanity will be in decline. Or, at least, so it seems to me.
I agree entirely. I'll even make the oxymoronic observation that immortality would probably lead to killer boredom.
Perhaps it is tangential. But what of the notion that speculating on the result is one of the things that makes us human?
On the one hand, yes, all others. To the other, the magnitude of disagreement is relative. I come back to the point that it is all in what we choose for ourselves, including how we define the word "ourselves". On the one hand, we're human, and in this together. That is a fact of nature. To the other, though, we are American or British or Iranian, &c.; we are Christian or Muslim or atheist, &c.; there are any number of arbitrary divisions we construct between our diverse selves. This is a fact of our choices. Beyond it all, though, we are the human species, all of us together. Which, of course, leads me back to the assertion that nature itself ought to be enough to contend with.
So am I, but I would present the difference as analogous to the politics of the American economy. Many people say the economy is in good shape, that the numbers say so. I heard the assertion today that the American economy is presently as good as any economic body has achieved in history. But others rightly point out that the numbers aren't translating into individual benefit the way it should. And, furthermore, Americans are working themselves sick; that's how we get the numbers to be what they are.
I think civilization in the abstract is a natural imperative: humans are social creatures and have been as long as they've existed. It is how we've evolved. And no, it's not necessarily pretty.
Okay, I will concede the possibility of the phrase "an outgrowth of an imperative". Civilization is different from society inasmuch as a society need not be civilized. But ... the difference seems thin.
To look back to your words just before that:
Human thought only determines the form which civilisation has taken and will take in the future . . . .
The fact that humans can analyze, understand, project, and have opinions about our future is part of what makes us human. Rather than competing blindly like other animals, we ought to be using our faculties to figure the present and future. Nature is not extraneous: our ability to choose forms of civilization is a tool; it did not arise arbitrarily. It helps us survive and prosper as a species.
Think of art. There are plenty of useless artists. But art itself is not useless, else it would not have a place in human evolution.