Would the World be Better if People Were More Rational?

[beenherebeforeagain]

Execution has nothing to do with revenge. Revenge would be allowing the families of the murder victim to kill the murderer with their own hands.

In the distant past, there were no prisons, and individuals who repeatedly violated the norms of the society were banished, often with the understanding that they would be killed on sight. This would push the problem off onto the future or onto other groups. Or, sometimes, the group would decide that the individual had so transgressed that they would kill them outright for their actions.

but, surprising to us modern folks, in many traditional indigenous cultures, the taking of a life within the extended group, and sometimes from other groups, was a matter settled with payment by the killer (or his/her family or group) to the victim's family or group. Of course, if the person or their family/group could not or would not pay, well, that could be resolved through the methods mentioned above...

To me, those methods are 'rational' given the circumstances of the times. Sometimes people need killed. But to me, it should always, always, always be the absolute last resort, and with the exception of defense of self or group members, should always be an agreement of all of the society.

 

[Enoch07]

In the distant past, there were no prisons, and individuals who repeatedly violated the norms of the society were banished, often with the understanding that they would be killed on sight. This would push the problem off onto the future or onto other groups. Or, sometimes, the group would decide that the individual had so transgressed that they would kill them outright for their actions.

but, surprising to us modern folks, in many traditional indigenous cultures, the taking of a life within the extended group, and sometimes from other groups, was a matter settled with payment by the killer (or his/her family or group) to the victim's family or group. Of course, if the person or their family/group could not or would not pay, well, that could be resolved through the methods mentioned above...

To me, those methods are 'rational' given the circumstances of the times. Sometimes people need killed. But to me, it should always, always, always be the absolute last resort, and with the exception of defense of self or group members, should always be an agreement of all of the society.

I agree. Life sentences are part of our social contract of being citizens. If the majority of the country would rather have life sentences than execution that is fine with me, as it falls under the social contract. Even on a personal level life sentences is fine with for someone who has been convicted of killing a single person.

But I still view it as immoral to allow mass murderers/serial killers/whatever terminology you want to use to not be executed. These are people who have not just killed one person, they have a history or pattern of killing multiple people. I add to that pedophiles as well, they deserve execution for the same reason as mass murderers. Because pedophiles usually have a long history of molesting more than one child, although even one child is too many.

 

[blü 2]

would the world tend to be better, worse, or the same if people were more rational?

If we want a well-run, just, equitable, equal-opportunity, caring, incorruptible system of government, maybe before too long there'll be AI candidates for the presidency, and an end to porkbarreling, smoke-filled rooms, deals with the Russkis, and plutocracy.

But at the last US presidential election, reason was decisively trounced, mocked and pissed on. They say the voice of the people is the voice of God; but fortunately a God who changes its mind depending as the wind blows; so just possibly it's too early to panic.

BONUS QUESTION: What do you personally mean by "rational"?

In this context I mean policies reasoned objectively from (wherever possible) hard data, to secure ends beneficial to the nation according to a set of principles designed to maximize social and financial equity, without losing sight of fair reward for enterprise.

Or something along those lines.

 

[siti]

All else being equal, would the world tend to be better, worse, or the same if people were more rational?

If better, in what way(s) would it be better?

If the same, why the same?

If worse, in what way(s) would it be worse?

I was going to vote for better but then I read @Skwim 's comment and thought he'd got it the wrong way round - (I mean I don't think rationality ever wanted or got 'wimen' to drop her knickers).

And that got me to thinking (in mixed metaphorical mode) that if more people had been more rational there would be less people to **** the world up...but as it is, there are far too many of us and being rational after we've already bred like rabbits would be shutting the stable door after the knickers are already round the ankles...(again!)...anyway, my point is we are all ****ed and the only difference rationality makes at this point is that we know it - I think I would have preferred blissful ignorance (but I'm afraid I'll have to leave that to others more expert in the field - there are plenty of them).

BONUS QUESTION: What do you personally mean by "rational"?

By "rational" I mean anything that I agree with - and so does everyone else...'based on logic, reason'...etc. pah! Whose logic and whose reason?

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Yes, it would be... in terms of human physical and mental well-being.

As for what ways it would help... an example from modern history: Norman Borlaug is credited with preventing a billion (with a b) deaths due to starvation and malnutrition by developing and expanding a rational approach to agriculture. I'm sure that other fields could have similar gains from a rational approach.

I agree with hairy testicles

 

[Nous]

The immoral (moral by my standards) action, is to execute the murderer. This prevents the murderer from ever hurting anyone ever again. Thus preventing any further possible loss of life.

Good lord. Is there any evidence by which to conclude that people convicted of murder will in fact murder again (i.e., are habitual murderers)? Cite that evidence, if such a thing is true.

Is there any evidence by which to conclude that most people convicted of murder in the US had fair trials and should have in fact been convicted? I can cite evidence leading to just the opposite conclusion--that most convicted murderers did not have fair trials and should not have been convicted.

 

[LuisDantas]

Execution has nothing to do with revenge. Revenge would be allowing the families of the murder victim to kill the murderer with their own hands.

Sorry. That really makes no sense whatsoever to me.

 

[Enoch07]

Good lord. Is there any evidence by which to conclude that people convicted of murder will in fact murder again (i.e., are habitual murderers)? Cite that evidence, if such a thing is true.

The answer is here. Where I also differentiated between a murderer and a mass murderer/serial killer.

But I still view it as immoral to allow mass murderers/serial killers/whatever terminology you want to use to not be executed. These are people who have not just killed one person, they have a history or pattern of killing multiple people.

Even on a personal level life sentence is fine for someone who has been convicted of killing a single person.

Someone who has killed multiple people is likely to continue doing so unless they have been rehabilitated, permanently incarcerated, or executed. Which I also pointed out here.

Convicted mass murderers are a good example. The moral (immoral by my standards) thing to do is to lock them away in jail, and try to rehabilitate them or at the very least keep them away from possible victims.

Someone that had been rehabilitated is no longer at risk to murder again. So they don't fit into the discussion, they serve their sentence, if they are eligible for parole they can still contribute to society.

 

[Enoch07]

Sorry. That really makes no sense whatsoever to me.

It's easy. Execution is by the state. A suspect is arrested, given a trial, and then a verdict. If the verdict is guilty they have multiple appeals to reverse the verdict. If the verdict is a death by execution the state carries that out either by lethal injection or electrocution.

Revenge takes the law completely out of the picture. The family of the murder victim seeks out who they think the murderer is. Then, without a fair trial with unbiased peers, kill that person/torture that person at their own pleasure.

Is the difference really that hard to undestand?

 

[LuisDantas]

It's easy. Execution is by the state. A suspect is arrested, given a trial, and then a verdict. If the verdict is guilty they have multiple appeals to reverse the verdict. If the verdict is a death by execution the state carries that out either by lethal injection or electrocution.

Revenge takes the law completely out of the picture. The family of the murder victim seeks out who they think the murderer is. Then, without a fair trial with unbiased peers, kill that person/torture that person at their own pleasure.

Is the difference really that hard to undestand?

I would not know. I do not dwell in such areas.

 

[Enoch07]

I would not know. I do not dwell in such areas.

You don't dwell in a civilized law abiding country?

Or

You don't dwell in a 3rd world revenge killing/raping country?

 

[Nous]

The answer is here. Where I also differentiated between a murderer and a mass murderer/serial killer.





Someone who has killed multiple people is likely to continue doing so unless they have been rehabilitated, permanently incarcerated, or executed.

Obviously your revision of what you consider the moral thing to do with murders came somewhat after the post of yours that I quoted. I'm glad to see that you're amenable to reason.

I am unsure offhand how many people convicted of murder are mass murderers or serial killers. For whatever reason, I suspect that it's a rather small percentage. I am also unsure if those convicted of mass murder or serial killing are subject to the same amount of judicial errors, demanding overturning of their convictions, as are people convicted of a single murder. Again, for whatever reason, I suspect that those convicted of mass murder or serial killing are probably not as often subject to those errors.

In any case, I am fine with those convicted of mass murder or serial killing in a fair trial, and other murderers, permanently incarcerated. Efforts to rehabilitate are well and good, but I would be hard pressed to have much confidence in such efforts.



Someone that had been rehabilitated is no longer at risk to murder again. So they don't fit into the discussion, they serve their sentence, if they are eligible for parole they can still contribute to society.[/QUOTE]

 

[LuisDantas]

You don't dwell in a civilized law abiding country?

As a matter of fact, no, I do not.

But what I meant is that I do not dwell in the mental landscapes where such thoughts exist. I am well aware of how marginal laws are, and I have come to value my mental processes too much to much care about them.

You don't dwell in a 3rd world revenge killing/raping country?

Actually, that is exactly where I live.

But as a rule, I don't think much about countries. They are not real enough to deserve much of my attention, either.

 

[Enoch07]

As a matter of fact, no, I do not.

But what I meant is that I do not dwell in the mental landscapes where such thoughts exist. I am well aware of how marginal laws are, and I have come to value my mental processes too much to much care about them.



Actually, that is exactly where I live.

But as a rule, I don't think much about countries. They are not real enough to deserve much of my attention, either.

Well that's a shame. Now, I understand why you don't see a difference then.

 

[YmirGF]

I'm siding with @Augustus on this one. I think the arts would suffer and in the long term I think we would suffer simply because the human condition is a varying mixture of rational and irrational behaviors. Aside from this, none of us are completely rational all the time and so trying to be rational could lead to an increase in mental illness as we consciously strive to stifle our irrational creative side.

In short, it sounds like a good idea, but ultimately, it could have very negative consequences.