|
|
|
|
|
|
by pgcsmd
4650 days ago
|
|
|
So, does your desire to hurt people who do bad things mean that you will accept a 70% rate of re-offending, or would you trade your desire for revenge for a 15% rate of re-offending? That is the question you really need to answer. Is it better to stop future offending or feel good about inflicting suffering on others who are "bad" right now? You might also want to throw into the mix the observation that a very large number of people in prison have untreated mental / behavioral issues and that a very large number of people who commit violent or sexual crimes have themselves been victims of such crimes in their formative years. My argument is that whatever your ethics are, treating people like animals creates more animals. We all pay the cost of that. |
|
|
Again, you attack me personally, this is not a good look for you. I wish harm on nobody; I long for a utopian day of mutual respect.
> You might also want to throw into the mix the observation that a very large number of people in prison have untreated mental / behavioral issues
I have already directly raised this point. You are changing the frame.
> [will] you [...] accept a 70% rate of re-offending, or would you trade your desire for revenge for a 15% rate of re-offending? That is the question you really need to answer.
I will boldly answer your question, though you have answered none of mine. Yes, I will accept a higher rate of re-offending. Ethics are not convenient, and are often not utilitarian. I would not kill one person to save ten, nor even a thousand. If holding an individual to account for their actions has a high cost, then so be it.
"Truly ethical behavior is acting according to principles even when those principles are inconvenient."