(December 6, 2015 at 1:05 pm)Homeless Nutter Wrote:(December 6, 2015 at 12:44 pm)Sappho Wrote: You're missing the point. I asked if/why we can judge people over rules that were made up by other people, mostly even in the past.
I see. So it is just a repeat of the same topic as usual. Oh, well...
Making judgments is how our brains work - there's no escaping nature. We make judgments about pretty much everything we encounter - both individually and as societies. Other people and groups of people are no different - we can't stop our brains from assessing their behavior in terms of potential danger to our survival. It's just a matter of what criteria we use and how rational, beneficial and adaptable they are.
So what other criteria do you propose we use? What are available alternatives? Other than judging people using rules that were made up by other people, mostly in the past - except that those people in the past claimed a magic man in the sky told them those rules, while no one else was looking? How is that better - in any practical sense, since morality based on revelation tends to be EXTREMELY resistant to changing circumstances and therefore likely to be harmful? Just look at ISIS - bronze age morality in action.
Thank you. This is the kind of reply I like to read
I agree with what you say.
You are also correct in that we have no other way to judge people than by made up rules.
But there is a little nuance with where I'd like to go to with this: it makes a difference on the verdict of the judge in court.
People often like criminals to be 'punished for their acts', but shouldn't we just remove them from society since that what they do is simply against the rules of that society? And for exemple, if someone would be imprisoned for dealing weed, but 1 month later it is legalised, should he be released, since he can't 'harm society' in that way anymore? I have heard people say we should do tests on pedophiles instead of rats because of that they've done.
What do you think?
whatever floats your goat
