Wednesday, July 25, 2012

On the Survialistic Morality of Social Justice

Provided with the fundamental requirements for life being survival we understand morality to be a dichotomy of consequences, being decided or intended upon by a person, or naturally occurring, with a valence of care/harm or positive/neutral/negative to self or other.

In general this theory proposes that greatest good comes from the production of essential commodities for essential needs. Prioritized from the greatest positive, benefit, and from the avoidance of death, or near death actuality (sickness, pain).

Ultimately, this idea is altruistic rationalism. We develop a moral judgment based on what we think should be avoided or desired.

The justice system of America, legitimizes positive or rational law. It attempts to prevent negative consequences from reproducing or repeating, by imprisoning or killing criminals that have acted out a behavior -- so determined by social justice.

Behaviors are classified as criminal as far as they hurt the condition or lessen the condition of life for others. Behaviors are classified as rewarding, as so far as they have qualification and work in relation to some form of production. According to this theory, as mentioned above, the most rewards a employee should obtain is from being in relation to the amount of production created by their work. This makes more sense than paying entertainers more than farmers.

Hn  = Pn Harm intensity equals punishment.
Cn = Rn  Care intensity equals reward.

These are general equations of reciprocation, and are not true in all conditions.

This is not always the case, as harm is done to prey of human beings, so as to live. Therefore there is a necessary prey-predator harm, that results in care.  There may even be a harm-harm condition between prey-predator as the offensive defenses of prey may retaliate with harm to the predator.

In this condition, the less death one imposes on animals, limited to consumption rates, the more care that is supplied. Man's relation to himself is not thought to be a condition of harm --> care, as in rewarding those who do harm. Those that punish, who may be considered to be harming the criminal are in actuality care for the populace and attempting to correct the aberrant behavior. In this sense un punishment may be considered punishment --> benefit, and in this sense harm cares for the populace and government officials.

Harm --> care explicit (sadism), is what would be what I call a "contrary state of justice" or "irrationalism" where harm unto one another is rewarded. Harm --> care implicitly, is rational, as punishment --> earnings (justice system). In some ways punishment may decrease liberty, but is also a corrective form changing a negative agent into a positive agent. In this way, punishment isn't really a harm at all.

If prisoners were tortured or inflicted with some form of pain, rather than just their loss of liberty, the justice system would work by not restraining harm unto harm. Criminality followed by torture, is what I would call malicious justice. These can be related to the moral system or justice symtem thought to exist by some religious people. Except it follows that even though you are good (produce, care, peace, happiness) you punishment is torture in hell. This is what I would call malicious injustice, according to an understanding of biology and its relation to the consequences that can effect life.

This is actually what happens during war, as well as the end of punishing harm caused by a criminal which equals an income for the legal enforcers (harm-->punishment-->care).  In this condition man is a predator to himself. Where those that harm others are prey to the government which is a predatory democratic government PDG. Not prey in the way one might normally know of it, not as something which is eaten, but rather the prey is something which harmed. As in the usage, "prey on little children." The predators, abusers, sadists, are themselves predators, so one might consider the punishment of these predators as predators against predators. There is no real use in understanding crime and punishment in this way, it just goes to show that harm leads to punishment, and that punishment leads to care within the system of justice.

This kind of justice (rationalism) is matter of imprisoning, taking liberty away from the "agent of harm". The government  gives man a task of being obedient to the laws so as to make profit, as well as generate care, peace, and happiness. When one refuses to generate the positive, the ultimatum is the generation of negative. The generation of harm by an agent of harm, is punishable by the PDG, so as to prevent the existence of further harm, greater than the "harm of punishment" (which in its can be beneficial as 1. Preventing harm. 2. Correcting behavior 3.Financing the work of PDG enforcers and judges).

In the condition of war or revolution a group of people is harmed by another group of people. The winning side is the side that can punish, kill, or destroy one side, because of greater armed forces. Though war is mostly harm-harm, and individually is harm-harm, on a marco-scale, there is always some one profiting from providing weapons of war or enforcement of the PDG ideals. All costs equal someone else's profits.

In+Wn/In+wn = Pw

Infantry, plus weapon power, divided by others, equals probability of winning war. The strongest force are likely to overcome the weaker forces.

How could we eliminate the care or profit that comes from punishing criminals? In capitalism it isn't possible, nor in any system. Why is this? The criminal himself, because of potential repetition of their misbehavior, is causing more harm than those punishing the criminal. In order to eliminate benefit from penal system, it would require the end of crime, the end of harming others. Such a world is not entirely possible, and therefore man will use government to punish (harm) those that do harm, and benefit from it. This kind of order could be considered somewhat rational, as the product of penal conviction is an essence an attempt to attenuate harm from the people and in doing so gain benefit.

How can crime rate be lowered? I think there are multiple factors that work to condition man into behaviors that are obedient to the general will of the people (peace and prosperity). Examples of modeling coming from the environment are critical in understanding how criminality can be prevented. 1. Parents 2. Media 3. Social connections/community 3. Education access 4. Occupational access are some of the leading opportunities which employ man into acting according to the economic system of rewarding ends. It is the responsibility of every man to implicitly care for others. Punishment that catches the behaviors after the effect, are less powerful in eliminating crime than early intervention, as is true in catching any disease in its early stages.

Although it may be debated that there is an initial harm done to those that experience sexual encounters having no information of sexual engagement, this theory doesn't account for the punishment of pedophiles.

It also does not include the parting of savings after a divorce, or the responsibility placed on one parent or the other. Though, one could consider fair parting of property to be in the interest of both parties, and giving long care privileges to the parent that is more nurturing.

No comments:

Post a Comment