Timeline for Can I reduce the crime rate by penalizing criminals' children socially?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 14, 2017 at 2:33 | comment | added | user64742 | @MichaelHardy Of course. It just seems like the answer focuses too hard on it being a dictatorship (which it isn't). | |
| Aug 14, 2017 at 2:29 | comment | added | Michael Hardy | @Typhon : As the question was initially written it sounded as if one person was to impose this system. However, I do think that democracy can sometimes impose tyranny, so the question of whether it's tyranny is not only matter of what the populace believes. As in other matters, an error can be popularly believed. | |
| Aug 14, 2017 at 0:31 | comment | added | user64742 | @MichaelHardy true, but what the populace believes is moral is all that matters when making a decision about "tyranny". Regardless, I was merely addressing your statement about assassination. That only works if there is a central leader forcing this upon the populace. That isn't the case here. | |
| Aug 14, 2017 at 0:19 | comment | added | Michael Hardy | What is moral or immoral is not a matter of what the populace thinks is moral or immoral, just as the question of whether eating carbohydrates is healthy or not is not a matter of whether the populace thinks it is. | |
| Aug 13, 2017 at 23:53 | comment | added | Michael Hardy | @Typhon : I assume you means "populace". Any answer that is more substantive must wait until later...... | |
| Aug 13, 2017 at 23:23 | comment | added | user64742 | @MichaelHardy yes indeed. Morality is in some ways objective, but there is a large chunk is left up to the decision of the populous or even the individual. For instance, screaming and yelling at someone might be immoral in our world. That doesn't mean a civilization cannot develop where taking in a soft voice is considered rude. My point is that this civilization is only immoral if there exists a populous where the "criminal gene" isn't believed to exist. If everyone truly believes it is real and wishes to locate it... then I would say it is a sign of ignorance and not tyranny. | |
| Aug 13, 2017 at 20:19 | comment | added | Michael Hardy | @Typhon : I entirely disagree with the statement that morality is subjective. You don't argue for that proposition. Is it something you thought was self-evident? | |
| Aug 13, 2017 at 19:53 | comment | added | user64742 | @MichaelHardy Ultimately, morality is subjective. You believe it is immoral. The people of this society (including the punished) might not think of it as immoral. | |
| Aug 13, 2017 at 19:45 | comment | added | Michael Hardy | @Typhon : Nonetheless it is an injustice that would be recognized as a crime and an instance of tyranny in a morally proper regime. | |
| Aug 13, 2017 at 19:22 | comment | added | user64742 | I'm not actually claiming this is fair. I'm just saying that the children/relatives might not actually believe it is unfair to themselves. They might accept it and work around the issue by getting menial jobs that are available for "criminal relatives". Plus, it only lasts one generation. It's not a permanent stigma. | |
| Aug 13, 2017 at 19:19 | comment | added | user64742 | If criminals also believe that a criminal gene exists and teach their children that, then the law or regulation making that stuff be placed into their criminal record might not be thought of as unfair. After all, if you believe you carry some criminal gene, then people being warned of its existence isn't bad. After all, mental illnesses can be inherited so if in this world people legitimately believe criminal behavior is a "mental health risk" of some form, then documenting it as public knowledge isn't strange. The only unfair act would be to lie and say they actually did commit the crime. | |
| Aug 13, 2017 at 19:14 | comment | added | user64742 | @MichaelHardy true, but assassination isn't a valid option in that case. The single yellow skinned man in the country isn't claiming to be some magic wizard that deserves to be put on a pedestal while everyone else is their slave. Society is the tyrant. You cannot assassinate 60% of the country. Plus, there's also the slight issue here that it isn't slavery going on and there's the issue that it relates to criminal behavior. Purple skinned people aren't inherently evil. There's the possibility that everyone (even criminals) believe that a criminal gene exists. Hence, everyone votes it in. | |
| Aug 13, 2017 at 19:02 | comment | added | Michael Hardy | @Typhon : Yes, a democracy can be a tyranny. The $60\%$ of voters whose skin is green can vote that the $40\%$ whose skin is purple should be enslaved and made to work without pay on cotton plantations and be bought and sold at auctions. That is democracy and it is tyranny. | |
| Aug 13, 2017 at 18:59 | comment | added | user64742 | @MichaelHardy But there's a flaw here. If the country is democratic and supports the new law en masse, then is anyone a dictator or a tyrant? If everyone believes it is reasonable then it works. After all, an employer doesn't need the tax break. They can just hire the child of a criminal. Furthermore, a university (if private) isn't forced to refuse people. It's society making these choices, not the government. The assumption of the question is that society isn't being forced to accept this law. It was in some way advocated by the people. | |
| Aug 13, 2017 at 16:08 | comment | added | pojo-guy | Isn't assassination considered death by natural causes for tyrants? | |
| Aug 13, 2017 at 5:39 | comment | added | Michael Hardy | @JBH : The government, obviously. | |
| Aug 13, 2017 at 5:38 | comment | added | JBH | Yeah, but... who's the tyrant in this situation? The ancestor or the government? | |
| Aug 13, 2017 at 5:11 | comment | added | Michael Hardy | @JBH : Tyranicide is sometimes considered justified because of the tyrannical nature of the target. | |
| Aug 12, 2017 at 23:49 | comment | added | JBH | I agree that the children of criminals are more likely to become criminals since they've already been punished/penalized/restircted by the acts of their predecessors. I'm not sure I agree that assasination wouldn't reasonably be considered a crime. I don't see how assassination would improve the situation. | |
| Aug 12, 2017 at 23:18 | review | First posts | |||
| Aug 12, 2017 at 23:49 | |||||
| Aug 12, 2017 at 23:14 | history | answered | Michael Hardy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |