I Need Help!

[lilithu]

As you like. Personally I view punishment as vengeance. Plain and simple. Punishment is simply something you do to someone to hurt them for hurting you or society or whomever. It has no noble qualities. So I can't exactly agree with you there.

So when you have a child and she breaks the rules that you have laid out, such as no cookies before dinner, and you catch her breaking the rules. In your mind, the appropriate response is vengeance??!

Punishment should be administered in service to the benefit of society, and hopefully, even benefit to the person who offended. The goal is to reduce the amount of harm in the world. Vengeance does not reduce harm; it augments it.

 

[Nikodemus]

So when you have a child and she breaks the rules that you have laid out, such as no cookies before dinner, and you catch her breaking the rules. In your mind, the appropriate response is vengeance??!

Punishment should be administered in service to the benefit of society, and hopefully, even benefit to the person who offended. The goal is to reduce the amount of harm in the world. Vengeance does not reduce harm; it augments it.

No, I don't consider punishment an appropriate response to a child taking cookies at all. I don't think punishment does one positive thing, ever. Cause lets face it, the only reason that kid who was punished won't take the cookies anymore is because of fear. So the kid will still do it when mom's back is turned.

Punishment should only be used on those we have no desire to correct, change, or rehabilitate. Actually, this all sounds like a good thread. And that way I won't hijack this one anymore.

Punishment

 

[lilithu]

No, I don't consider punishment an appropriate response to a child taking cookies at all. I don't think punishment does one positive thing, ever. Cause lets face it, the only reason that kid who was punished won't take the cookies anymore is because of fear. So the kid will still do it when mom's back is turned.

Punishment, when administered correctly and WITHOUT vengeance, teaches kids that there are consequences to their actions.

Punishment administered with vengeance, such as a beating, teaches fear.

 

[Magic Man]

No, I don't consider punishment an appropriate response to a child taking cookies at all. I don't think punishment does one positive thing, ever. Cause lets face it, the only reason that kid who was punished won't take the cookies anymore is because of fear. So the kid will still do it when mom's back is turned.

Punishment should only be used on those we have no desire to correct, change, or rehabilitate. Actually, this all sounds like a good thread. And that way I won't hijack this one anymore.

Punishment

So, you believe in just letting children do whatever they want?

 

[Nikodemus]

Punishment, when administered correctly and WITHOUT vengeance, teaches kids that there are consequences to their actions.

Punishment administered with vengeance, such as a beating, teaches fear.

I don't think we're going to see eye to eye here. I'll freely admit it's because I'm the wacko in this case, but I don't see us coming to any agreement. Simply put, I do not think it is possible to punish someone without vengeance. I think it is possible to teach, guide, correct, rehabilitate, etc...without vengeance, but if you think in terms of this person did X therefore they must suffer Y, you are acting in a vengeful manner.

But again, that's just my opinion.

So, you believe in just letting children do whatever they want?

Of course not. But you don't have to punish a child for grabbing the sweets. You can explain why they shouldn't be gobbling them down and take them away. No need to punish.

And we really are hijacking this thread. I'll be happy to discuss this more in the thread I created entitled Punishment in the General Debate forum.

 

[lilithu]

but if you think in terms of this person did X therefore they must suffer Y, you are acting in a vengeful manner.

I agree. I'm saying that "therefore they must suffer" is not the same as punishment (altho some people mistake it for that), it's vengeance.

Getting back to your comment on Storm's drawing the line at rape but not castration. I do not think that her primary motivation for allowing castration was vengeance (tho of course she can correct me if I'm wrong), but rather to try to prevent the person from offending again. Whereas there is no justification for rape other than vengeance.

Seriously, I think only a guy could suggest rape as punishment and think that's somehow more humane than castration. :areyoucra

 

[opuntia]

Jesus gave an answer to the Jews when they asked what is the great commandment in the law (Matthew 22:34-40), he said how we treat others such as God and human beings were the two great commandments in the law.

There are positive enactments of the law and negative enactments. The positive is about how we should conduct ourselves toward others; the negative is about how we should not conduct ourselves toward others. These are ethical considerations.

I think building upon a framework such as this may help answer your questions.

 

[Nikodemus]

Seriously, I think only a guy could suggest rape as punishment and think that's somehow more humane than castration. :areyoucra

hahahaha True, but if you look, you'll see I suggested both. :areyoucra

 

[Joshua Pryce]

Why do humans operate with natural faith? What is the basis for natural faith?

 

[FredVB]

There are evidences that influence our faith, while something beyond influences it. None is proof, you cannot give what proves your faith is right to another. They can only have their own faith, that is not from what you have your faith from.

 

[ChristineM]

Im not religious but i will say you cannot go wrong with Bill and Teds "be excellent to each other" and work from there

 

[FredVB]

There is answer which many of us would look for to where did everything here come from. There is widespread understanding that there are right things to do with each other, and wrong things. It would be most reasonable that God who created us has the goodness for distinguishing what is right, and cares for our benefit. That would explain how we have the sense of ethics and things being right or not, we would not have those if they were not from God, and distinction between right and wrong would not exist. We can trust our Maker as those are really distinct, that we see.

 

[nPeace]

That doesn't quite fit me, though. I think it's a beautiful philosophy, but I believe in giving others the treatment they earn.

I mean, if we practiced the Golden Rule - truly lived by it - it would necessitate letting violent criminals go free since that's what they want. That's an extreme example, of course, but it highlights my qualms with that philosophy.

I have alway understood the golden rule to be... treat others as you would want to be treated.
As far as I know, every judge, jury, and executioner believes that justice must be served. Which means that if they break the law... for example commit a violent act against someone, they expect they should face the full weight of the law.
Unless they are dishonest liars. I hope they aren't... but that doesn't change the law.

 

[Aupmanyav]

As some of you know, I am taking a Build Your Own Theology class through my church.

IMHO, the church should not try anything like that. Accept what it is. Thinking about a personal theology will take you away from the church. If that is going to happen, why at all, should you have the church association?
See, what happened to Martin Luther.