Post Reply Stance on society
7253 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / "10/10" - IGN
Offline
Posted 11/17/15 , edited 11/17/15
Hi guys, I just wanted to ask how you guys feel about generalizing people into any group.
Do you feel like people are naturally good or bad?
I ask this in the context of personal belief about what is healthier for society.

Just have conviction (you need to crack a few eggs to make an omelette) mentality?
This means punishing a few innocent people accidentally here and there in order to catch most of the baddies.

Just have mercy (innocent until proven guilty) mentality?
This means never hurting innocent people even if it means accidentally letting a few baddies get away.

Examples:


TL;DR
So, when it comes down to it, what do you think?
Does the bad behavior of some need to be exterminated at all costs, even if it means sacrificing some of the innocent? Or
Do the innocent always need to be protected, even if it means being taken advantage of sometimes?
5205 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Australia
Offline
Posted 11/17/15
I think for the majority of every day cases, we should try to be forgiving and understanding. A lot of issues, such as crime, is not a singular event, but rather a journey to that point. Something usually leads to that moment when someone finally commits a crime, whether it'd be abuse, being desperate, a mental health issue, etc, etc. I think society needs to become more inclusive, rather than exclusive. Also, some crimes may in the future no longer be crimes. I will use marijuana as a prime example in the US. The way we think about crime is very black and white, but the issues that some laws cover are very grey. Hence, we should try to further understand crime, the people committing the crime, and why these crimes happen in the first place.

Now, some people are really very bad and in a situation where you can save lives, let's say, someone holding people hostage and seems to be non-negotiable and is threatening to kill people, then perhaps the safest thing to do is try and take them out before they can cause harm, though this is a regrettable course of action and if at all possible, try to apprehend them, rather than kill them. However, I do think that these situations are preventable, by trying to be pro-active in trying to stop these crimes from happening, as opposed to being re-active.

In terms of your welfare argument, though people being lazy and living off the system may seem bad, I think what is worse is that there are people with an abundance of wealth (that they couldn't hope to spend in their lifetime) that could easily be shared to the most needy (some of which are very decent human beings).

I would implore you to check this video, which raises some really good points about incarceration in America. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaPBcUUqbew
I would also implore you to investigate, I believe it's either Sweden or Norway, who are taking a new approach to crime, where criminals are sent to prisons that are more like little communities, where they can be properly rehabilitated into life.
20811 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 11/17/15
I say mercy unless it really hurt someone.
Bad behaviour after all is very opinionated and differ per culture.

Getting high would be considered bad behaviour yet it doesn't hurt anyone.
355 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/17/15 , edited 11/17/15
People are just people. I've learned to trust no one but myself. I'd rather go off what my intuition tells me about someone than what they want me to hear. A lot of people, for example, envy or want to feel they are above others. These people I find to be easily manipulated but they also serve to involve more people. I still don't think we can comprehend the interactions between people because society is rather shallow. That's what makes it dangerous.

On to the subject of mercy, I think there is a large database on what to do I think people who make the decisions that matter are brave and can forgive them if they make a wrong decision now and then as long as they can reverse this once they find out otherwise. Continue with trial and error

On the subject of unemployment and welfare, I think that if you're on welfare, the likelihood that every penny you get is used asap tells you enough. The money is just going back into the economy in the most efficient way. Say you own a property and you've owned it for years with no plans to resell it, this money just sits quietly and doesn't go around.
82328 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / M
Offline
Posted 11/17/15


People are neither naturally good nor bad. They are, like all living things, self-centered. What this means is that they will act in their own self-interest first. This can extend to acting primarily in the interest of those they care about (even when it seems counter to their self-interest), because it is in their own self-interest to make sure those emotional connections are maintained. They may also take "self-sacrificing" actions, because it is in their self-interest to maintain a healthy mental/emotional state.



I am in favor of "innocent until proven guilty" when talking of criminal investigation. It isn't right to take the freedom of someone when there isn't sufficient evidence that they did anything unacceptable to society.


Insanerino wrote:
Examples:



You are comparing apples to oranges. On the one hand, you are talking about whether or not to strip away the freedom of someone and lock them in a containment cell (or kill them) based on flimsy or strong evidence, depending on stance. On the other hand, you are talking about providing financially for the lazy in order to not miss those that need help. I see where your viewpoint is coming from, but it is skewed.

First of all even in the second example of "giving a helping hand" because people cannot afford their costs due to dependents/debts/etc., that is typically due to irresponsibility. It is a bad idea to be financing irresponsibility and laziness. The reason is that people, being self-centered, will usually take the path of least resistance. If the government is going to cover all their costs, why should they bother to do so. There will be some that do so anyway because it is beneficial to their mental/emotional health (and pride), but many will not. It is actually a disservice to the irresponsible/lazy to bail them out, because they will continue to be irresponsible/lazy. There are cases where people on welfare are there because they can't provide for themselves, such as due to disabilities, which is a different case. There should be some system for providing for the unable, but it should seek to provide for as little irresponsible/lazy as possible. The irresponsible would have to become responsible, and if necessary seek temporary assistance from donated funds, while the lazy would have to get off their lazy asses.

This extends to businesses, by the way. There should never have been funds given to businesses because they were "too big to fail". Businesses should not have been bailed out, and should not be bailed out again. Privatized profits with socialized losses is a bad thing. Now those businesses are even bigger, so when there are problems again, bailouts would be called for all over again.
27244 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 11/17/15
I think it's better to not punish five alleged criminals than it is to punish one innocent person.

That being said, I don't think it's okay to let lawbreakers run free. But I also don't believe that all violations should be punished no matter what. There's a balance to be had, even though no choice results in a perfect society. It's a matter of minimizing the flaws without unreasonable cost.
You must be logged in to post.