|
|
Post by joustos on Oct 23, 2021 19:56:39 GMT
The philosophy of Crime and Punishment is as old as the institution of social laws, namely enforceable norms of social conduct. It became prominent in the 18th century (in the Age of the European Enlightment), when some people felt that incarcerated criminals were often caused to suffer great atrocities; it should be resumed now (in the Age of Western Globalism), when some people or "activists" work for the elimination of incarceration, which is viewed to be a form of punishment even when the culprits retain their civil rights [citizenship], retain already established civil entitlements, and they enjoy privileges suitable to their status -- with the result of social chaos and an increased burden on law-abiding citizens. Hence ... this thread....
Questions: What is a crime? {What social actions are criminal?} Are there such things as criminal beliefs and criminal solipsistic deeds [such as contemplating beautiful things]? Must crimes be punished? What are just punishments (if any at all)?.........
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 24, 2021 17:22:24 GMT
I think this question is asked in time, and this problem is very actual one.
Unfortunately, I can't say I remember which thought that was lately I was thinking, and it was about why the crime (as a concept) is... Brifely, what is going on with it, but not as a linguistic term, but as a concept.
Well, I can say this first: a) can we imagine a crime without a society? - No, there must be someone else to help us to descibe or sign something that may be called as a cribe, or can be taken as such concept: therefore, any crimes exist only in a society; b) can a crime exist with no accusations? - I guess not, but only if a society is enough clever and wise to find out how this society is moral and good; but no accusing leads to no crime: hence, no accusators - no crime; c) another case is when someone accuses another one person, and this case leads to a courtesy case, and during the process a society faces the fact that they must understand or decide what must be taken as a crime (unfortunately, no good examples except for "M" (1931, by Fritz Lang) comes to my mind); and when they think about it, they have to be united or more democratic, because this is where they may have come to some conclusions; thus, a certain unclear accusations lead to making this society be united in their views (of course it might not happen, but I guess if it woudn't happen, then it would be no good for this society); d) is it true that any crimes are harmful for a society (where this crime happened)? - Let's say 1.1) it is. Then, I reckon it's naturally for a society to take this crime as a crime; 1.2) not, it's not (but partially). This time I think that we've got an interesting case, but in turn it might have some sub-cases, some modal versions of it, while I don't think it's so important to view them. Instead, I guess that if the answer is "no", then it must be that it's harmful for a part of a society. This part may be as few persons, so just one unit. In any event, along with (1.1) this show that there's some dangers behind this crime. 2) no, it is not (for anyone). Well, I think this case the most interesting, but I think I have to stop here. I don't think many of you will have read till this phrase.
|
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Oct 24, 2021 21:29:11 GMT
I think this question is asked in time, and this problem is very actual one. Unfortunately, I can't say I remember which thought that was lately I was thinking, and it was about why the crime (as a concept) is... Brifely, what is going on with it, but not as a linguistic term, but as a concept. Well, I can say this first: ken as such concept: therefore, any crimes exist only in a societya) can we imagine a crime without a society? - No, there must be someone else to help us to descibe or sign something that may be called as a cribe, or can be taken..; b) can a crime exist with no accusations? - I guess not, but only if a society is enough clever and wise to find out how this society is moral and good; but no accusing leads to no crime: hence, no accusators - no crime; c) another case is when someone accuses another one person, and this case leads to a courtesy case, and during the process a society faces the fact that they must understand or decide what must be taken as a crime (unfortunately, no good examples except for "M" (1931, by Fritz Lang) comes to my mind); and when they think about it, they have to be united or more democratic, because this is where they may have come to some conclusions; thus, a certain unclear accusations lead to making this society be united in their views (of course it might not happen, but I guess if it woudn't happen, then it would be no good for this society); d) is it true that any crimes are harmful for a society (where this crime happened)? - Let's say 1.1) it is. Then, I reckon it's naturally for a society to take this crime as a crime; 1.2) not, it's not (but partially). This time I think that we've got an interesting case, but in turn it might have some sub-cases, some modal versions of it, while I don't think it's so important to view them. Instead, I guess that if the answer is "no", then it must be that it's harmful for a part of a society. This part may be as few persons, so just one unit. In any event, along with (1.1) this show that there's some dangers behind this crime. 2) no, it is not (for anyone). Well, I think this case the most interesting, but I think I have to stop here. I don't think many of you will have read till this phrase.Eugene, hello. I bolded or underscored some of your passages in order for me to isolate responses. I have read your entire post! To the first bolding:Agreed: to think of crime as a concept (that is,substantively) rather than as a linguistic term. However, our [adult-life] concepts are linguistic -- in the form of our sonoric languages and, to begin with, according to the one's own national linguistic learnings and education,,,,, To the first undescoring Agreed:Any crime can exist only in a society, but as I had insinuated, a crime is a social action, an action against some individual. Yet I asked whether a belief or asolipsistic,intransitive, action can be a crime.[It can, for some people, such as those who insist that everbody must believe in only one God -- the first Biblical commandment; or that pleasure without reproduction is immoral and, therefore, criminal.] To the second bolding:I disagree that"no accusation no crime". For me a crime is an objective offense [harm ] of some person, such as an unprovoked killing of a person. An accusation, or a summon to go to a court of law, is a presequisite for a process, but not for the occurrence of a crime. //Sorry, I have to go right now. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 25, 2021 12:09:44 GMT
I think this question is asked in time, and this problem is very actual one. Unfortunately, I can't say I remember which thought that was lately I was thinking, and it was about why the crime (as a concept) is... Brifely, what is going on with it, but not as a linguistic term, but as a concept. Well, I can say this first: ken as such concept: therefore, any crimes exist only in a societya) can we imagine a crime without a society? - No, there must be someone else to help us to descibe or sign something that may be called as a cribe, or can be taken..; b) can a crime exist with no accusations? - I guess not, but only if a society is enough clever and wise to find out how this society is moral and good; but no accusing leads to no crime: hence, no accusators - no crime; c) another case is when someone accuses another one person, and this case leads to a courtesy case, and during the process a society faces the fact that they must understand or decide what must be taken as a crime (unfortunately, no good examples except for "M" (1931, by Fritz Lang) comes to my mind); and when they think about it, they have to be united or more democratic, because this is where they may have come to some conclusions; thus, a certain unclear accusations lead to making this society be united in their views (of course it might not happen, but I guess if it woudn't happen, then it would be no good for this society); d) is it true that any crimes are harmful for a society (where this crime happened)? - Let's say 1.1) it is. Then, I reckon it's naturally for a society to take this crime as a crime; 1.2) not, it's not (but partially). This time I think that we've got an interesting case, but in turn it might have some sub-cases, some modal versions of it, while I don't think it's so important to view them. Instead, I guess that if the answer is "no", then it must be that it's harmful for a part of a society. This part may be as few persons, so just one unit. In any event, along with (1.1) this show that there's some dangers behind this crime. 2) no, it is not (for anyone). Well, I think this case the most interesting, but I think I have to stop here. I don't think many of you will have read till this phrase.Eugene, hello. I bolded or underscored some of your passages in order for me to isolate responses. I have read your entire post! To the first bolding:Agreed: to think of crime as a concept (that is,substantively) rather than as a linguistic term. However, our [adult-life] concepts are linguistic -- in the form of our sonoric languages and, to begin with, according to the one's own national linguistic learnings and education,,,,, To the first undescoring Agreed:Any crime can exist only in a society, but as I had insinuated, a crime is a social action, an action against some individual. Yet I asked whether a belief or asolipsistic,intransitive, action can be a crime.[It can, for some people, such as those who insist that everbody must believe in only one God -- the first Biblical commandment; or that pleasure without reproduction is immoral and, therefore, criminal.] To the second bolding:I disagree that"no accusation no crime". For me a crime is an objective offense [harm ] of some person, such as an unprovoked killing of a person. An accusation, or a summon to go to a court of law, is a presequisite for a process, but not for the occurrence of a crime. //Sorry, I have to go right now. Joustos, I'm glad to see you again also! Surely, you know last couple of months I was really busy. And even now there's no so much time I'd like to have to even think about some things. (I suspect I'm not the only one; many people today are quite rushing or do everything so quickly. Even some students of mine were laughing when I proposed to them to do their homework like speedruners. They complained to me that they also didn't have time to read books.) Must note something, because when I wrote a comment to you, I went to bed, but when I was almost having dreams I was thinking about what I said, and I was targeting my first argument, about a society role, and while doing it some of doubts visited me. I mean what if, let's say, Robinson Crusoe occured in an isolated island, could he thought he made of some crimes? Or - as another example (more relevant one) - as a protagonist from the movie "Cast Away" (2000, Tom Hanks) - he did accused himself in doing crime onto his imaginary friend... So, honestly, right now I can be so sure what I was sure yesterday. And I guess that sometimes either a society may be just imaginary within - in a head, or in a mind, or it may occur that there is no society, but a person can accused himself. The last case it's like - to be a judge and a punisher for oneself. Also, I presume this thought - about some ambiguity or some specific condition about using a linguistic form... hmm... (I apologize, sometimes some things are so uneasy for me to explain. I must practice in English much more harder, much more)... I mean that it's true, and I agree with it, that in a society, especially - as I cannot disagree with you - when it concerns some national or a cultural side of this question (we can even see some examples, like what we call the law is to be different in different countries and cultures; plus to it, seems it's been changing wth a life of a nation, or a culture). Into my mind one of philosopher's thought visits me, I think it was John Wisdom who said that the language of adults is nothing, but a maze-like compicated kid's language. It's hightly possible that most of our discussions about how to use or how to operate this concept is about its linguistic forms, or et cetera. Must confess the next question isn't easy for me. I got its meaning, but can't say I know to answer. For me it's clear that, as you truly underlined, sometimes those actions are just societyVSindividual, and during the history we might see examples of religious background behind those... "actions". One important note here: I don't think that we have to judge our predecessors. I guess the any law is non-retroactive, or it's not retroactive. Unlike some postmodernists I don't think that if in the past person X did an action A, and it wasn't be considered as a crime C for the most of people, or it wasn't taken legally as it, I shouldn't judge that person taking rules of the modern time. Or, in other words, for the present time P, if the action A is taken as a crime C, then I don't think that it's correct to judge a person X by this crime. I mean who know, maybe in the future this action A won't be taken as a crime no more, and the situation will return. And here's another point - from the religious angle, or some other typical angles: what if a certain person P gets pleasure by doing F, but what if this action F is taken as a crime (or sorta crime, if we may take some different types of courtesies, like the consistory, or a church courtesy) in this society? I think that Christianity strictly enough said that sometimes our daily mistakes are not like that. The most prominent example of it is when Christ forgave sins to a thief on the cross. So, what my view on it, and how I try to understand this situation: I think that it means, for me, that I shouldn't have to judge every prohibition someone makes, but at the same time it doesn't mean that any violation of crimes are good. Because, you know, I think we cannot refuse some crimes, otherwise we'd like in anarchy. As for a person - one should use some hard brakes; if there are no limits for a person, this person isn't so far from an animal. Hmm... Might be. I mean I woulnd't insist that I'm right claiming of no accusation - no crime, but what made me type it? I wanted to expand or to wide the meaning of the accusation. For me, as in the novel "Crime & Punishment", there are kinds of those accusatons. And one of the most powerful one is not a social, but rather intimate and a very personal one - one's consqiousness. I think this term is uneasy to translate to English. In Italian this term might be translated to: rimorsi, or conscienza. In German it is: Gewissen, and Ancient Greek equivalent might be: συνείδηση. That's why one's one consciousness can be the accusator. And this consciousness might summon people one's will to struggle some passions, and to resist temptations within. As in the prayer Our Father it reads: "...Lead us not into temptation, but deliever us from evil". I think it's clear enough to see being tempated and being covered by evil isn't the same. |
|
