IDENTITY=Behavior There are no CAUSELESS crimes or innocent evils

by Terry 89 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Terry

  We often hear it said: Love the sinner, but; hate the sin.

  We try and reform the child molester. We put career criminals through rehabiliation. We let the drunk driver off with a fine and a warning over and over until an innocent family is wiped out.

  Why separate the deed from the doer? Aren't we fooling ourselves?

  Our personality stems from who we are as an identity. Our behavior is OUR behavior and is not a causeless phenomenon. We must own what we do. To create a false dichotomy between what we are as thinking beings and the activity we engage in purposefully is to lie to ourselves.

  There are no causeless crimes. There are no innocent evils. We do or do not do according to our thoughts, ideas, compulsions or choices. Otherwise, everything is excusable.

  Hitler becomes a rather nice fellow who simply had wrong ideas and needed some love and therapy. The Nazis who murdered 6 million Jews were patriots zealous for a purer race who were mistaken about their Anti-Semitism.

  Every evil deed is causelss unless we see the person behind the deed and hold them accountable.

  Nothing comes from nothing.

  WE are the world. The evil in the world stems from what evil men do.
• 

  LongHairGal

  Don't you know it is politically incorrect to say people are responsible for their own behavior? (I am being sarcastic, of course).

  The only time I think somebody would be "unaccountable" is if they are a severely mentally retarded child. Otherwise, there would have to be levels of accountability.

  As far as the saying about "love the sinner but hate the sin": don't JWs believe Jehovah is going to destroy the sinner and not just the sin? So, this idiot liberal teaching is just bullshit.

  LHG
• 

  Hellrider

  Terry!

  I love your reasoning on this. It`s wonderfully politically incorrect, and I often think this way myself (lol). And the argument goes not only to individuals, but also belief systems. For example: Doesn`t it bother you when people say about a certain religion (in which atrocities often occur) that "it`s not the religion itself that is the problem, it`s the culture", and I instinctively think: WHY? Isn`t a religion not just it`s "holy books", but also its tradition? And isnt tradition really the entire sum of the religions history of behaviour?

  On the other hand, this line of thought causes other problems: Imagine this scenario: What about a person (A) who has been raised in a shitty religion (like the Jehovahs Witnesses, for example). He is in his early teens (let`s say 12 years old), his entire childhood he was beaten, told he was no good by his parents at home, bullied at school, and then, in addition to this, some ministerial servant (B) takes him aside one day while in ministry, and sexually abuses him. Let`s get rally grotesque, and say sodomy (and whatever else disgusting you can imagine). Person A dies on the inside. He is ruined. At the age of 18, one night he grabs a knife, and during the night, he goes to "visit" the above mentioned person B, and then stabs him to death. The question is: Is person A "evil" ?

  The point is: Although I wish it was as simple as deed=personality, unfortunately, I don`t think it is that simple. The individuals history has to be taken into consideration before passing moral judgement.

  But certain belief systems/communities/societies more easily breeds people with "dubious" characters`. That`s why its better to aim your guns at belief systems, rather than individuals themselves. Usually, people who commit horrible atrocious acts, have usually at some point in their lives experienced something horrible done unto them. There are definitely exceptions (and in these cases, we could start talking about pure, untainted evil), but these people are usually exceptions to the rule. In my opinion.
• 

  Anti-Christ

  I agree, to a certain point. Some people are accountable 100% for there actions, they knew it was wrong and did it anyway, convincing themselves that it was O.K. But others do things because they don't know any better. I think a good example is us, ex JWs, we acted a certain way because we used to think it was the wright way to act. An other example I think of is my dad. He used to beat the crap out of me and he was psychological abusive also. He thought that was the right way to raise a child and a lot of people used to think that way, but now that we know better there is no more excuses. Wen it comes to harming or killing people because of there belief, race or sexual preferences, there is no excuse because that person is not doing anything to hurt you. I think certain people that do evil things are evil, as for the rest maybe it's because they don't know any better.
• 

  kid-A

  "Our personality stems from who we are as an identity. Our behavior is OUR behavior and is not a causeless phenomenon. We must own what we do. To create a false dichotomy between what we are as thinking beings and the activity we engage in purposefully is to lie to ourselves."

  I agree with most of this, but you reach a moral and ethical quandery when you need to factor in the ultimate cause of behaviour, and to what extent the individual had any control over those causes. You're right to state behaviour is not a causeless phenomenon, however the philosophical and moral dilemnas begin when one attempts to trace these causes.....

  Case in point: Phineas Gage. This was a well adjusted, socialized person who suffered a horrible and accidental brain injury, following this accident, Gage's entire personality changed, he engaged in completely inappropriate social behaviour and was unrecognizable from the person his family once knew.

  Now, the question becomes, is Gage responsible for his actions? What does society do with Gage? Do we hold him accountable for crimes he commits? Do we lock him up? Not such simple black and white answers.

  “

  Gage was fitful, irreverent, indulging at times in the grossest profanity (which was not previously his custom), manifesting but little deference for his fellows, impatient of restraint or advice when it conflicts with his desires, at times pertinaciously obstinate, yet capricious and vacillating, devising many plans of future operations, which are no sooner arranged than they are abandoned in turn for others appearing more feasible. A child in his intellectual capacity and manifestations, he has the animal passions of a strong man. Previous to his injury, although untrained in the schools, he possessed a well-balanced mind, and was looked upon by those who knew him as a shrewd, smart businessman, very energetic and persistent in executing all his plans of operation. In this regard his mind was radically changed, so decidedly that his friends and acquaintances said he was 'no longer Gage.' Case in point # 2: Babies born to drug addicted mothers. We can say with near certainty these babies will grow up into socially maladjusted individuals and have a high propensity for criminal activity. We know their neural systems regulating behavioural control have been completely messed up due to in utero drug exposure. Now, are they to blame for this? Who does society hold accountable for any criminal activity they ultimately may engage in? Are they morally responsible for their actions, when their behavioural disorders were pre-determined before even being born?
• 

  Scully

  Are they morally responsible for their actions, when their behavioural disorders were pre-determined before even being born?

  Other questions that comes to mind are related to the idea that raising a child born of a drug addicted during pregnancy mother, completely free of that environment. What role is played by the specific knowledge that the child has about his or her prenatal history? Does a child with this knowledge turn out to have more behavioural disorders than a child who is raised not knowing his or her prenatal history? Does knowledge of this kind "write on the slate" of who they are or who they perceive themselves to be as they grow up?

  Does knowledge provide the child with an "excuse" to be an under achiever, or to behave in an inexcusable manner? Would withholding the information, if it would give the child a normal starting point, a "clean slate" so to speak, without excuses for poor achievement or behavioural problems, cause the child to grow up differently?
• 

  proplog2

  Terry: do you think evil people ought to be killed?

  I'm sure you have seen the new book "The Lucifer Effect" Phillip Zimbardo

  http://lucifereffect.com/
• 

  Terry

  For example: Doesn`t it bother you when people say about a certain religion (in which atrocities often occur) that "it`s not the religion itself that is the problem, it`s the culture", and I instinctively think: WHY? Isn`t a religion not just it`s "holy books", but also its tradition? And isnt tradition really the entire sum of the religions history of behaviour?

  Think about this. People choose what they choose and act as they act. The result is behavior. The fruits of what they chose and the actions they perform constitute the Religion's deeds.

  The words on paper which make up the theology must be performed and chosen and believed in order to have any power for good or harm.

  I'd say: "It isn't the religion, it is the choice of the religion" which gives the taint to the deed. The deed is done by the one acting out of a sense of something their own mind has identified as correct. The person, the brain, the choice, the deed are inextricably bound in identity.
• 

  Terry

  On the other hand, this line of thought causes other problems: Imagine this scenario: What about a person (A) who has been raised in a shitty religion (like the Jehovahs Witnesses, for example). He is in his early teens (let`s say 12 years old), his entire childhood he was beaten, told he was no good by his parents at home, bullied at school, and then, in addition to this, some ministerial servant (B) takes him aside one day while in ministry, and sexually abuses him. Let`s get rally grotesque, and say sodomy (and whatever else disgusting you can imagine). Person A dies on the inside. He is ruined. At the age of 18, one night he grabs a knife, and during the night, he goes to "visit" the above mentioned person B, and then stabs him to death. The question is: Is person A "evil" ?

  For this to be true all people so treated would turn out to be violent and sadistic and antisocial misfits. But, it isn't the case at all. People born in poverty who are ill-treated and subjected to the worst imaginable often turn into exemplary persons of compassion and self-worth.

  We are what we are. This is our nature. We become what we are. There are many obstacles to the final being which is us. However we arrive the journey is inevitable.

  Ask yourself how men withstand torture without becoming tyrants and you'll find that the answer lies in the core of who/what they are.
• 

  Terry

  Now, the question becomes, is Gage responsible for his actions? What does society do with Gage? Do we hold him accountable for crimes he commits? Do we lock him up? Not such simple black and white answers.

  Thanks for a good and thoughtful example.

  Phineas is no longer the pre-accident core person. Old Phineas: bye-bye.

  Now, the question becomes this. Why continue to treat the new Phineas by the same standard as the pre-accident Phineas? That is the hidden presupposition which skews the seeming injustice of holding the person who commits the ill deed accountable.