How We Can Rid Our World Of Evil

[robocop (actually)]

If you and I are alike, we think of ourselves as morally superior to Adolf Hitler. We think it impossible that we could have done what he did. And yet, had we been born with the same genetic inheritance, raised in the same way, lived in the same era, and had the same experiences as he, it's not certain but it's very likely that we would have acted as he did, and most of the world would regard us as evil.

I think the word 'evil' shows a harsh judgment, one caused by our arrogant need to feel morally superior to others. The need to feel superior is the very same need that motivated Adolf. The difference between us and Adolf Hitler is that we were luckier at birth. We were mildly infected with arrogance. He was severely infected. (Psychologists use the fancy term malignant narcissism).

But evil is merely a perception. If we humans were to see sickness and not evil. We would think of quarantine and not punishment. Our conscience would then allow us to isolate dangerous people from the general population until they are no longer dangerous. For example, people who only fantasize about rape or child abuse are not dangerous; but those who actually commit such acts ought to be quarantined for life, even on a mild first offense, until an effective cure can be found. Child molesters might be confined in an adult-only town where they could live their lives normally but without access to children.

Violent offenders might be quarantined as well. A safer world is possible if we were to think of quarantine for dangerous sickness rather than punishment for evil

I keep saying it: Everyone is good; everyone is on the side of the human race. But only some people contribute to society.

 

[Revoltingest]

Why can't we change this perception? Societies make moral advances, like its view on slavery, the rights of women, the rights of homosexuals by changing perceptions.

It appears to be a fundamental aspect of humans

Btw, familiar with A Clockwork Orange?
In it, government tried to stamp out evil,
but used an evil process.

 

[Shad]

If you and I are alike, we think of ourselves as morally superior to Adolf Hitler. We think it impossible that we could have done what he did. And yet, had we been born with the same genetic inheritance, raised in the same way, lived in the same era, and had the same experiences as he, it's not certain but it's very likely that we would have acted as he did, and most of the world would regard us as evil.

I do not follow this concept of identity so can not agree.

But evil is merely a perception. If we humans were to see sickness and not evil. We would think of quarantine and not punishment. Our conscience would then allow us to isolate dangerous people from the general population until they are no longer dangerous. For example, people who only fantasize about rape or child abuse are not dangerous; but those who actually commit such acts ought to be quarantined for life, even on a mild first offense, until an effective cure can be found. Child molesters might be confined in an adult-only town where they could live their lives normally but without access to children.

Violent offenders might be quarantined as well. A safer world is possible if we were to think of quarantine for dangerous sickness rather than punishment for evil

Just for clarification purposes. Does this idea of sickness restrict free will? Does this sickness cause criminal action? Is there a criminal action based on free will alone? I ask as this idea of sickness seems like very convenient axiom created in order to avoid the possibility of people actually being "evil" by their own choice. Now I do understand there are mental conditions which do influence thought-processes. However treating all criminal acts as a sickness is something I am not convinced of yet. Also I would put forward prison is not solely punishment but also quarantine. It is one of the smallest forms in terms of space provided but the prisoners are still isolated from the community for it's protection.

For argument sake, disregarding the above, do you have ideas of practical application of a quarantine town? How would we contain an unspecified number of people in a town? How do we control traffic flow from the regular public. Do those "committed" work? Is there a staff population? Namely what type of system(s) is going to be used to implement to create a secured area as we have in prisons. What about the costs? Where does the funding come from?

I would add a local experience to this. It may not be applicable in everyone's area but the basic idea is easy to understand. During the winter crime from the homeless population increases as condition worsen. Petty crimes and short sentences are preferable to winter conditions. This "town" contains the same possibility except with greater freedoms and space than the current prison system.

Do not get me wrong I think there is potential in at least the "town" idea if specific details are explored.

 

[Mock Turtle]

It's obvious that children would live in a safer world if anyone who can be convicted of child molestation is never put back into the general population since there is no known cure and since these crimes are known to escalate in severity. There's no reasonable way for you to deny this.

The break-up of a family might actually make things worse for the child, so not always that simple, and child molestation is just one of the reasons for being labelled a sex offender. Sex offending covers quite a range of things, from downloading illegal imagery to underage sex by a year perhaps (teenage stuff). Just because we haven't found a definitive means to 'cure' many deemed as being 'sex offenders' that doesn't necessarily mean that we will never do so, and some do not progress to more explicit forms of behaviour - many of the illegal downloaders, for example, who might never have even come into contact with a real child and who might have come to this via an escalating erotic attraction. There is some hope I believe that this sort of thing could be helped so as not to progress and for it to be eliminated.

I'm not sure how you came by that premise. However, there's a lot of research being done in prisons already. My quarantine concept would enable the very same kind of research to be done more efficiently by providing more subjects with the same problem.
We're not redefining anything. If a person can be convicted of an act of child molestation, he or she would go to quarantine for life rather than go to prison, only to be released, uncured, back into the general population.

The prison population, where much of Dr Cantor's work originates, doesn't necessarily reflect on the wider population of those who have such attractions to children. It's always been a problem differentiating sex offenders and paedophiles, when the former are not necessarily the latter - as in the vast majority of family situations. Opportunity, marital problems, and other things seem to be more likely to produce offending behaviour here, and where anything that is aimed at halting this will most likely not be applicable to true paedophiles.

 

[joe1776]

If evil is just a perception then who is to decide what is evil and what is not and thereby who get quarantined?

The criminal justice systems of the world now decide whether an act is evil. The same system would decide that the act was sick and thus quarantined and not punished.

 

[joe1776]

Ah, but how do you know you've quarantined the offenders before they offend?

I haven't proposed that idea.

 

[joe1776]

I doubt it. There were many men who were born with the same or similar genetic inheritances, raised the same way, and had experiences very like his. None of them did what he did.

That's why I said that it wasn't certain. However, Adolf's mix of personality in those circumstances was a rare "perfect storm" for a troublemaker to make trouble.

 

[joe1776]

I dont believe in the idea that, evil is genetically determined. this is against the principle of Divine justice.

Since I don't believe in the principle of Divine Justice, we have no where to go with this.

 

[joe1776]

I keep saying it: Everyone is good; everyone is on the side of the human race. But only some people contribute to society.

I think we humans are born capable of both good and bad. Some more good than bad; some more bad than good.

I think how we start out in life is a matter of luck... and if we finish as better human beings than when we started, we've done well.

 

[joe1776]

It appears to be a fundamental aspect of humans

Don't you imagine that the idea of owning people who were defeated in war as slaves once seemed to be a fundamental aspect of human nature? It went on for centuries.

Btw, familiar with A Clockwork Orange?
In it, government tried to stamp out evil,
but used an evil process.

Seeing sickness rather than evil and solving it with quarantine rather than punishment moves us humans to being less judgmental and more caring.

 

[Revoltingest]

Don't you imagine that the idea of owning people who were defeated in war as slaves once seemed to be a fundamental aspect of human nature? It went on for centuries.

Seeing sickness rather than evil and solving it with quarantine rather than punishment moves us humans to being less judgmental and more caring.

I don't argue against the possibility of improvement, just against eliminating evil.

 

[joe1776]

I do not follow this concept of identity so can not agree.

OK

Just for clarification purposes. Does this idea of sickness restrict free will?

It doesn't restrict free will but it assumes that our will isn't as free as we'd like to believe.

Does this sickness cause criminal action?

Yes, it makes us dangerous to others just as the rabid animal is dangerous.

Is there a criminal action based on free will alone? I ask as this idea of sickness seems like very convenient axiom created in order to avoid the possibility of people actually being "evil" by their own choice.

No, the idea of behaving badly as an act of free will would be a contradiction. I think we act to satisfy needs, the way we drink to satisfy our need for water. To NOT drink, would be an act of free will. To NOT behave badly, and thus not satisify our need to feel superior to others would be an act of free will.

Also I would put forward prison is not solely punishment but also quarantine. It is one of the smallest forms in terms of space provided but the prisoners are still isolated from the community for it's protection.

But prison is like putting people with a dangerous disease in quarantine and then releasing them while still infected.

For argument sake, disregarding the above, do you have ideas of practical application of a quarantine town? How would we contain an unspecified number of people in a town? How do we control traffic flow from the regular public. Do those "committed" work? Is there a staff population? Namely what type of system(s) is going to be used to implement to create a secured area as we have in prisons. What about the costs? Where does the funding come from?

I've given some thought to it, but I don't want to get into this here. I see it as an idea that can be tried easily and then expanded over several years.

I would add a local experience to this. It may not be applicable in everyone's area but the basic idea is easy to understand. During the winter crime from the homeless population increases as condition worsen. Petty crimes and short sentences are preferable to winter conditions. This "town" contains the same possibility except with greater freedoms and space than the current prison system.

Do not get me wrong I think there is potential in at least the "town" idea if specific details are explored.

I think that a trial of the quarantine concept will be easier to sell to the public than the idea that sickness should replace evil. But, if the trial proves to be a winner, the change of perception would follow.

 

[joe1776]

The break-up of a family might actually make things worse for the child, so not always that simple, and child molestation is just one of the reasons for being labelled a sex offender. Sex offending covers quite a range of things, from downloading illegal imagery to underage sex by a year perhaps (teenage stuff). Just because we haven't found a definitive means to 'cure' many deemed as being 'sex offenders' that doesn't necessarily mean that we will never do so, and some do not progress to more explicit forms of behaviour - many of the illegal downloaders, for example, who might never have even come into contact with a real child and who might have come to this via an escalating erotic attraction. There is some hope I believe that this sort of thing could be helped so as not to progress and for it to be eliminated.

People who fantasize about robbing a bank are not bank robbers. People who fantasize about rape are not rapists. People who fantasize about having sex with a child are not child molesters. These people are not dangerous. They have control, so there's no reason to quarantine them. It's that first act, when they actually harm someone, even if the harm is slight, that labels them "dangerous" with a sickness for which there is no known cure.

 

[joe1776]

I don't argue against the possibility of improvement, just against eliminating evil.

I understand.

 

[Mock Turtle]

People who fantasize about robbing a bank are not bank robbers. People who fantasize about rape are not rapists. People who fantasize about having sex with a child are not child molesters. These people are not dangerous. They have control, so there's no reason to quarantine them. It's that first act, when they actually harm someone, even if the harm is slight, that labels them "dangerous" with a sickness for which there is no known cure.

Well that is hardly accurate - that fantasies never lead on to actions - since they often do, so where would one draw the dividing line? Many of those who started with fantasies do go on to commit crimes - examples from gun crimes confirms this, and from the many who seem to be conditioned by violent video games. And I doubt it is much different with paedophile behaviour - the opportunities perhaps making this more or less likely. But these days, where contact with children via the internet is much easier, is it so unlikely that someone would never become so involved?

 

[joe1776]

Well that is hardly accurate - that fantasies never lead on to actions

You misunderstood. I didn't say that fantasies NEVER lead to actions. I said that fantasies are not crimes and that fantasies alone should not be cause for quarantine.

 

[Mock Turtle]

You misunderstood. I didn't say that fantasies NEVER lead to actions.

You certainly seemed to imply that.

 

[joe1776]

You certainly seemed to imply that.

You misunderstood.

From my OP:
For example, people who only fantasize about rape or child abuse are not dangerous; but those who actually commit such acts ought to be quarantined for life, even on a mild first offense, until an effective cure can be found. Child molesters might be confined in an adult-only town where they could live their lives normally but without access to children. Violent offenders might be quarantined as well.

 

[Mock Turtle]

You misunderstood.

People who fantasize about robbing a bank are not bank robbers. People who fantasize about rape are not rapists. People who fantasize about having sex with a child are not child molesters. These people are not dangerous. They have control, so there's no reason to quarantine them. It's that first act, when they actually harm someone, even if the harm is slight, that labels them "dangerous" with a sickness for which there is no known cure.

I suggest you reread that and not be so dogmatic. You can't actually say that - not with any degree of confidence. If you read the research you will find that many do indeed start off so and then do go on to offend against children - and even downloading illegal images is regarded as offending anyway. It's all a bit slippery slope.

 

[joe1776]

I suggest you reread that and not be so dogmatic.

And I suggest you stop stubbornly insisting that your misunderstanding of what I wrote is what I really meant.

To state or imply that some perverts never move from fantasy to action would be a radically stupid comment.