From Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" chapter 8. I recommend ppl reading that chapter. As seen on
"You see, they assumed that Man has a moral
"Sir? But I thought -- But he does! I have."
"No, my dear, you have a cultivated conscience, a most carefully
trained one. Man has no moral instinct. He is not born with moral sense. You
were not born with it, I was not -- and a puppy has none. We acquire moral
sense, when we do, through training, experience, and hard sweat of the mind.
These unfortunate juvenile criminals were born with none, even as you and I,
and they had no chance to acquire any; their experiences did not permit it.
What is `moral sense'? It is an elaboration of the instinct to survive. The
instinct to survive is human nature itself, and every aspect of our
personalities derives from it. Anything that conflicts with the survival
instinct acts sooner or later to eliminate the individual and thereby fails
to show up in future generations. This truth is mathematically demonstrable,
everywhere verifiable; it is the single eternal imperative controlling
everything we do."
"These juvenile criminals hit a low level. Born with only the instinct
for survival, the highest morality they achieved was a shaky loyalty to a
peer group, a street gang. But the do-gooders attempted to `appeal to their
better natures,' to `reach them,' to `spark their moral sense.' Tosh! They
had no `better natures'; experience taught them that what they were doing
was the way to survive. The puppy never got his spanking; therefore what he
did with pleasure and success must be `moral.
Back to these young criminals
-- They probably were not spanked as babies; they certainly were not flogged
for their crimes. The usual sequence was: for a first offense, a warning --
a scolding, often without trial. After several offenses a sentence of
confinement but with sentence suspended and the youngster placed on
probation. A boy might be arrested many times and convicted several times
before he was punished -- and then it would be merely confinement, with
others like him from whom he learned still more criminal habits. If he kept
out of major trouble while confined, he could usually evade most of even
that mild punishment, be given probation -- `paroled' in the jargon of the
"This incredible sequence could go on for years while his crimes
increased in frequency and viciousness, with no punishment whatever save
rare dull-but-comfortable confinements. Then suddenly, usually by law on his
eighteenth birthday, this so-called `juvenile delinquent' becomes an adult
criminal -- and sometimes wound up in only weeks or months in a death cell
awaiting execution for murder. "
These three excerpts are rather interesting imo. If I could I would copy the whole of chapter 8, but I am not sure moderators would allow it(see how
well behaved I am, although it is easier to get forgivenesss than permission) and again I encourage you to read that chapter, it's short so feel
Today going to prison is not really punishment
, it's akin to a "time-out" for a kid in the house. In some countries, you have access to your
personal TV, internet basicly anything. And for some it's a badge of honour getting some jailtime. How is this punishment? For the lone reason
you're not allowed to go where you want? There is no REASON why kids should be afraid of doing anything at all what they want, if all they get is a
"timeout". Fear of loosing ones life, the instinct to survive is refined over thousands of years, because it works to ensure certain behavior.
Unless we want to have a totalitarian approach to raising new humans, we must accept that some humans are raised(by design or ignorance) to behave
exactly as they want to, using violence to get what they want. If we want those who do that like Saddam Hussein, Josef Fritzl and a million more
examples, NOT to do so, how do we deal with it? WE, society, use violence to oppose it. Iraq was invaded = Violence for example. People are put in
jail, after being forcefully being removed from the streets.
So there a certain types of violence we accept, be it physical or mental and not others. Seems arbitrary which is ok'ed and which are not.
I know of an individual who is such a disturbance to society that he needs 30 people, mostly social workers, to safeguard him 24 hours a day, to make
sure he doesn't freak out and cause harm to others. How does that make sense? If he is such a problem and can't be reached, what is the point of
retaining him in society?
Do I think it is a tragedy that he has turned out the way he has? Of course! It's deeply tragic that he has been raised in a manner that resulted in
him being a psychopath, or if his dna has part of it. But it doesn't make him any less a psycho.