If you have a chance, watch "The Root Of All Evil" series on YouTube, which is Richard Dawkins argument that religion itself is bad, and useless. In particular, there's an interview with a gentleman that Dawkins himself describes as "actually quite nice", but this gentleman thinks that adulterers should be put to death because of his religious views.
Why people think that a behavior that's existed for millenia can be elimited by just upping the punishment a little more each year, is totally beyond me. It's the definition of insanity to keep doing the same thing and expect different results.
I just mean the general attitude of always being "tougher on crime" as a preventative measure. Minimum sentences, three-strikes laws, and so on.
Punishment isn't as effective in stopping undesired behavior as determining the root incentive for that behavior, and eliminating that. But, of course, that's a lot more difficult than punishment after the fact, and it doesn't jibe well with the whole Eternity of Suffering religious dealio.
Maintaining societal order has always required some kind of system of punishment for when people don't play by the rules. Eliminating the root causes is not only difficult, but impossible in many cases.
This isn't something that's unique to dealing with a particular religious dogma, either. The atheist Soviets tried to creatue a purely secular society based on equality and they failed in the worst way.
Eliminating the root causes is not only difficult, but impossible in many cases.
I disagree and point to Prohibition as an example. "The Economics of Crime" (which I have not read, but my wife has) presents a good discussion of the incentives and causes for a variety of crimes, and Freakonomics has an interesting theory on the decline of crime in the USA over the past 20 years.
Puzzling that you use prohibition as an example. I always thought of it as the classic "damned if you do, damned if you don't" case. Plus, aside from the legal status of drugs and alchol, there will be people out there abusing them.
Human nature always has and always will produce weak and unstable people who will be drawn to corrupt behavior.
Why people think that a behavior that's existed for millenia can be elimited by just upping the punishment a little more each year, is totally beyond me. It's the definition of insanity to keep doing the same thing and expect different results.
Reply
The desire to kill people based on religious beliefs (or lack thereof) is hardly a recent development.
Reply
Punishment isn't as effective in stopping undesired behavior as determining the root incentive for that behavior, and eliminating that. But, of course, that's a lot more difficult than punishment after the fact, and it doesn't jibe well with the whole Eternity of Suffering religious dealio.
Reply
This isn't something that's unique to dealing with a particular religious dogma, either. The atheist Soviets tried to creatue a purely secular society based on equality and they failed in the worst way.
Reply
I disagree and point to Prohibition as an example. "The Economics of Crime" (which I have not read, but my wife has) presents a good discussion of the incentives and causes for a variety of crimes, and Freakonomics has an interesting theory on the decline of crime in the USA over the past 20 years.
Reply
Human nature always has and always will produce weak and unstable people who will be drawn to corrupt behavior.
Reply
Leave a comment