Reasonable Assumptions

[alienlovechild 75]

People are complex in their moral and ethical attitudes. The fear of getting caught isn't the only reason people choose not to commit crimes or immoral acts.

Unfortunately, there's a sizable element of society that would run wild if not for fearing what others would think or do to them. Hobbes was right about how life would be brutish and short without some controls on behavior.

[Nagishkaw 510]

It's all too much .

[The_Dude 1,142]

People are complex in their moral and ethical attitudes. The fear of getting caught isn't the only reason people choose not to commit crimes or immoral acts.

Unfortunately, there's a sizable element of society that would run wild if not for fearing what others would think or do to them. Hobbes was right about how life would be brutish and short without some controls on behavior.

Now you are just making the case for a social contract, or big government. I thought conservatives were against that sort of thing

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

People are complex in their moral and ethical attitudes. The fear of getting caught isn't the only reason people choose not to commit crimes or immoral acts.

Unfortunately, there's a sizable element of society that would run wild if not for fearing what others would think or do to them. Hobbes was right about how life would be brutish and short without some controls on behavior.

Again its not quite as simple - there are people who commit crimes out of desperation (for money to buy food or drugs, for example). They aren't doing it based on the fear of consequence for the criminal behaviour, but on the fear of consequence of what will happen to them if they don't do it.

Indeed if what you're saying were true - there would be significant evidence to the effect that harsh prison sentences and the death penalty significantly deter major crime. I think its safe to say that this isn't the case.

[Peikko 1,575]

Isn't part of 'getting away with it' or 'having no consequences' not feeling afterward that you have behaved badly, unconscionably, or in such a way as to feel guilty about having done so afterwards? I would have thought very few men actually would feel that it is their right, perhaps even their duty to service a female who is available, willing participant or not.

Edited May 7, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[Peikko 1,575]

People are complex in their moral and ethical attitudes. The fear of getting caught isn't the only reason people choose not to commit crimes or immoral acts.

Unfortunately, there's a sizable element of society that would run wild if not for fearing what others would think or do to them. Hobbes was right about how life would be brutish and short without some controls on behavior.

There are controls on behaviour. We all have a moral framework, code of conduct that is based on notions of what is right and what is wrong, and not merely on what comes naturally.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Isn't part of 'getting away with it' or 'having no consequences' not feeling afterward that you have behaved badly, unconscionably, or in such a way as to feel guilty about having done so afterwards? I would have thought very few men actually would feel that it is there right, perhaps even their duty to service a female who is available, willing participant or not.

Pretty much - the closer you look at it the murkier I think it becomes.

But I think its fair to say that people who have been brutalised in some way have their consciences "damaged", which makes it easier to perpetrate acts that would horrify "sane" people. This is likely why child abuse, for example, doesn't just spring out of thin air and that a lot of times the abuser was a victim of abuse themselves.

[alienlovechild 75]

Now you are just making the case for a social contract, or big government. I thought conservatives were against that sort of thing

No, there's a thing called limited government. Conservatives favor property rights and don't want other stealing their property nor harming their families.

Again its not quite as simple - there are people who commit crimes out of desperation (for money to buy food or drugs, for example). They aren't doing it based on the fear of consequence for the criminal behaviour, but on the fear of consequence of what will happen to them if they don't do it.

That's rare as the social safety net in the U.S. covers the bare minimum to survive. I remember a cop telling me he'd never met a crook who stole for food for his family.

Crime would be out of control in poorer countries if your theory was correct but that isn't always the case.

Indeed if what you're saying were true - there would be significant evidence to the effect that harsh prison sentences and the death penalty significantly deter major crime. I think its safe to say that this isn't the case.

So we should open the prison doors and there would no increase in crime? 6, luckily you aren't in charge of determining policy at any level. Why bother with any police enforcement since crime always exists?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Again its not quite as simple - there are people who commit crimes out of desperation (for money to buy food or drugs, for example). They aren't doing it based on the fear of consequence for the criminal behaviour, but on the fear of consequence of what will happen to them if they don't do it.

That's rare as the social safety net in the U.S. covers the bare minimum to survive. I remember a cop telling me he'd never met a crook who stole for food for his family.

Crime would be out of control in poorer countries if your theory was correct but that isn't always the case.

We were talking general I thought, not in relation to any specific country.

As I said earlier - the complex nature of people precludes broad-brush generalisation. So really taking into account what you said, and what I said we're really no closer to an understanding, which was the point I was making.

I just offered up the "desperation" example as a counterpoint to what your earlier scenario.

Indeed if what you're saying were true - there would be significant evidence to the effect that harsh prison sentences and the death penalty significantly deter major crime. I think its safe to say that this isn't the case.

So we should open the prison doors and there would no increase in crime? 6, luckily you aren't in charge of determining policy at any level. Why bother with any police enforcement since crime always exists?

I don't think I've suggested anywhere that I believe this to be the case. Going back to the OP though, this is exactly what I was talking about in relation to reasonable assumptions. Thanks for proving my point.

[Peikko 1,575]

Your fail in logic Alien. Prison may not be a deterrent, but that doesn't mean that people should not be sent to prison.