• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

"He deserves to suffer" vs. forgiveness for weakness

In that case though where people favor imprisoning such criminals rather than buying merchandise for them, the concern is not just the amount of taxpayer funds that go to that end. It is also just the principle of effectively giving into extortion. Even if it does end up costing more in government funds, that seems preferable over giving into intimidation from them. People should not be rewarded with material items for threatening other people. They should be arrested, tried, and imprisoned instead.

Brian
 
In that case though where people favor imprisoning such criminals rather than buying merchandise for them, the concern is not just the amount of taxpayer funds that go to that end. It is also just the principle of effectively giving into extortion. Even if it does end up costing more in government funds, that seems preferable over giving into intimidation from them. People should not be rewarded with material items for threatening other people. They should be arrested, tried, and imprisoned instead.

Brian

There is no extortion. Just poverty.

It can be resolved in one of two ways; an enlightened taxpayer will choose the cheaper, not because of threats but because of self interest.

Poverty is not so much a threat as a force of nature. You can build a levee now, or spend a lot more recovering from the floods next year. You don't refuse to build a levee because the flood is extorting money from you.

The poor don't want nor threaten to commit crime; they are driven to it.
 
You are right in that I went too far in calling it extortion. My mistake. I would still agree with the main point I was making though, regardless of which labels we use for the behaviors. It is in our public interest to provide charity and welfare to those in poverty, in regards to basic items like food, water, police protection, residence, etc. You had just gone further than that though in mentioning buying TVs for the poor. That seems to go too far, in that it is more of a higher-end item. Even if it is cheaper in the long run, just as a matter of principle I do not think it is something we should be undertaking. If it is also a matter of increasing security and safety to buy TVs for the poor to prevent them from stealing ours, I would still instead favor equipping police and legal enforcement to reduce those crimes instead. If someone were "driven" to steal cars from others (rather than "wanting to" do so), that is not a good reason to actually use taxpayer funds to buy them such a car.

Brian
 
Of those who don't perceive they benefit from social some will do otherwise. It is society's demand that it find ways to effectively (cost, human damage, right-wrong, based) to minimized those effects. A TV for all program would be one such potential remedy.

Add to that class those who don't care about social contracts for whatever reason and you have the whole problem. They both need social contract solutions.
 
I think it has to do with the notion that there is or should be some kind of balance to the universe. If a person does something bad, the just response is that something bad happens to him in return. It also ties in with the converse view that if you do good, good things will happen to you as a result.

I don't know if that's a particularly bad stance to take. It helps reinforce the idea that there are consequences for actions.

An eye for an eye - makes the whole world blind - Gandhiji
What you are saying is Vengeance, not justice
 
RE: Roanoke Shooter - but any situation with a perpetrator and a victim

I'm disturbed by the reactions some people are having to this murder in Roanoke. I get the emotion, and I have full forgiveness for people doing this thing that disturbs me. I don't dislike the people thinking it. Or even think less of them. My emotion is strictly on the idea - that a man who commits a crime "deserves" pain and punishment in return.

Not my cuppa tea. I don't think anyone "deserves" suffering. That's exactly the mindset that made this man do what he did. Exactly. He thought they did something bad and "deserved" what he was doing. And that's true of so many criminals Not all, of course, some do it for pleasure and those I think should be neutralized, still not "punished."


Not sure if I'm going to say something to the people saying these things. On one hand I would hope it would help people feel less pain sooner if they can step back from their pain into the comfort of "just" grief. On the other, perhaps they are not in a position to find that comforting.

But the "he should live [from his self-inflicted wound] so he can be made to suffer" or even the "he should die before he can confess so that he spends eternity in hell" are both deeply painful to me in EXACTLY the same way the murders themselves are.

The morality of not hurting others requires the morality of this being universal. IMHO.

What you are talking about is the difference between Vengeance and Justice - unfortunately our society leans towards vengeance - it is quicker and easier and sometimes not much we can do. Justice is slower
You see this in movies all the time - the hero or heroine loses her loved ones to evil men and then he or she slowly kills off these evil people - the movie ends and people think that justice is done - what they have witnessed is actually Vengeance, not justice
If you run your car over my dog, running my car over your dog is not justice, it is vengeance
That is why the concept of Hell is so wrong - it shows how primitive religions are
This is also where the brilliance of Gandhiji shines - he wanted justice for us Indians, he didn't want us to hate the British, to indulge in violence & MLK used the same precepts
That is the difference between Vengeance and justice - Vengeance is quicker, accompanied by hate and violence whereas Justice is much slower, no hate or violence
 
RE: Roanoke Shooter - but any situation with a perpetrator and a victim

I'm disturbed by the reactions some people are having to this murder in Roanoke. I get the emotion, and I have full forgiveness for people doing this thing that disturbs me. I don't dislike the people thinking it. Or even think less of them. My emotion is strictly on the idea - that a man who commits a crime "deserves" pain and punishment in return.

Not my cuppa tea. I don't think anyone "deserves" suffering. That's exactly the mindset that made this man do what he did. Exactly. He thought they did something bad and "deserved" what he was doing. And that's true of so many criminals Not all, of course, some do it for pleasure and those I think should be neutralized, still not "punished."


Not sure if I'm going to say something to the people saying these things. On one hand I would hope it would help people feel less pain sooner if they can step back from their pain into the comfort of "just" grief. On the other, perhaps they are not in a position to find that comforting.

But the "he should live [from his self-inflicted wound] so he can be made to suffer" or even the "he should die before he can confess so that he spends eternity in hell" are both deeply painful to me in EXACTLY the same way the murders themselves are.

The morality of not hurting others requires the morality of this being universal. IMHO.

You know what pisses me off even more?

That people have this reaction when the victim is white, but when the victim is black, they make up all kinds of excuses for why the murder victims deserved to be killed. If not that, then they show indifference to the suffering and death of African-Americans. Far too few of us seem to care as much about the deaths of non-whites as we do about the deaths of whites.

And we are supposed to believe this is a "post-racial society" in which racism doesn't exist anymore. Delusional thinking like this is why Trump is currently the front-runner.

As for the actual topic you brought up in the original post (sorry for the aside), no one deserves suffering. People who think that are just primitive savages who can't control their bloodlust.

Humans are a social species. Like most social species, our primary survival strategy is each other. If you work to improve the survival and well-being of others, then you make a tiny contribution to the survival and well-being of everyone in your society. If enough people do the same thing, then the overall improvement in survival and well-being of the whole society is very large even though the contributions of each individual is small.

To maximize this strategy, we need as many people as possible to do more good than harm. When someone does more harm than good, then this can have a large impact on the overall survival and well-being of the group.

It is possible that the Roanoke shooter would, after committing those murders, would then become a model citizen, in which case it would make sense to do nothing to him at all. However, we cannot predict the future. We are neither clairvoyant nor omniscient. Thus when someone commits a serious crime, we make a calculated guess that they will continue to do more harm than good in the future and remove them from society so that their tendency to do more harm than good cannot impact the survival and well-being of others. The more serious the crime, the longer we need to keep them removed from society.

Punishing people does nothing to improve the survival and well-being of society, not even as a preventative measure. Every single person who commits crimes such as murder genuinely believes they will get away with it, or is otherwise too emotionally or intellectually compromised to consider the consequences of their actions.

We should not think in terms of punishment, but simply about keeping potentially dangerous people separated from society. Doing this is simply a matter of self-interest for society.

If their crimes are such that they can expect to be released back into society, then we need to do what we can to ensure that they do more good than harm as a participant in society upon their release. Unfortunately, America does an extremely poor job of this right now. Ex-cons have an extremely difficult time finding jobs, which makes them more likely to to return to crime upon release. Further, incarceration tends to erode basic social and life skills needed to function in society, while reinforcing many negative traits.
 
RE: Roanoke Shooter - but any situation with a perpetrator and a victim

I'm disturbed by the reactions some people are having to this murder in Roanoke. I get the emotion, and I have full forgiveness for people doing this thing that disturbs me. I don't dislike the people thinking it. Or even think less of them. My emotion is strictly on the idea - that a man who commits a crime "deserves" pain and punishment in return.

Not my cuppa tea. I don't think anyone "deserves" suffering. That's exactly the mindset that made this man do what he did. Exactly. He thought they did something bad and "deserved" what he was doing. And that's true of so many criminals Not all, of course, some do it for pleasure and those I think should be neutralized, still not "punished."


Not sure if I'm going to say something to the people saying these things. On one hand I would hope it would help people feel less pain sooner if they can step back from their pain into the comfort of "just" grief. On the other, perhaps they are not in a position to find that comforting.

But the "he should live [from his self-inflicted wound] so he can be made to suffer" or even the "he should die before he can confess so that he spends eternity in hell" are both deeply painful to me in EXACTLY the same way the murders themselves are.

The morality of not hurting others requires the morality of this being universal. IMHO.

There are two instances in my own family where I could've let my emotions control me and seek revenge, but I didn't because 1. I'm not that kind of person and 2. I found it easier simply to forgive them. It took a while to forgive, sure, but I'm not going to have any peace in my life if I never forgave them. I highly doubt anyone who seeks revenge is ever going to find peace, even if they follow through with their revenge.
 
There are two instances in my own family where I could've let my emotions control me and seek revenge, but I didn't because 1. I'm not that kind of person and 2. I found it easier simply to forgive them. It took a while to forgive, sure, but I'm not going to have any peace in my life if I never forgave them. I highly doubt anyone who seeks revenge is ever going to find peace, even if they follow through with their revenge.

Last year I listened to a man tell his story, he had been signed up to play football with David Beckham at Layton Orient, he had a promising life ahead of him, but he was stabbed in the back. He has been paralyzed from the waist down for the last twenty seven years, his prison is a wheel chair which he will never escape from. They caught the man who did this, he served four years in prison, and then he was able to walk out of prison on his own two feet. In the eyes of the law, justice had been served, and punishment handed out. But from the confines of a wheelchair, this was not true justice.

He said he fights two diseases; being paralyzed and the greater disease; was the anger he held against this man for many years. He learned to drive an adapted car, he found out where his assailant lived, and then stalked him with the intention of running him down.

He came to understand that if he ran him over, he would be as bad as his assailant. He says that true justice would be that he was never stabbed in the back, but true justice can never happen for him now.

He only started to find some peace when he started to forgive and let go of the anger that was eating away at him. This is a process he has to come to terms with every day being trapped in a wheelchair.

He now gives lectures around the country on the power of forgiveness.
 
Back
Top Bottom