Some Philosophical Thoughts

Well I know I haven’t posted anything about this, but I often think about things that I doubt others really do. I spend a lot of time thinking about things like religion and morals, and just some things that don’t require any sort of education, so to speak. The difference between thoughts on moral values as opposed to presidential candidate opinions is that you need to know much more about the subject to give an educated thought into who you would vote for president.

So, I often have discussions with a few friends of mine, both from back home, about these sorts of things. To give you an idea about how intellectual these conversations can get, I’ll say that a few weeks ago one of my friends told me I was “defining things that need not be defined” in terms of a certain issue.

But the one thing I would like to post on today is discipline.  We see different forms of discipline, from a child being confined to his or her room for a set period of time, to a criminal being confined to a 6′ by 8′ cell for a much longer set period of time. But I think that often the punishment that is given is too harsh or not harsh enough, based on what the “punisher” feels towards the wrongdoer. For example, when a man beats his kid for drinking at a party, perhaps he was right in punishing the child, yet the punishment was too harsh because of his vengeance and anger towards his kid. Or when a jury feels sorry for a criminal because he acts in a manner that makes one want to feel sorry for him, when in fact he should be punished more than decided upon.

The main point is that punishment should be a form of setting someone straight, the aim is to make sure they learn their lesson and do not do whatever it is again. Of course it is difficult to determine, but as humans are capable of vengeance and empathy, variance occurs and the punishment is often inaccurately determined.

So, to define it: Punishment should be given with the sole intention of preventing further infractions.

Also, another thought and anomaly: Punishment given which does not provide another chance is altogether selfish. Perhaps the original statement should read “main intention” instead of “sole intention”?

A killer who is given another chance and let out on the streets again puts other people in jepoardy. Selfish. Yet necessary?

This is basically how our conversations go, we discuss something and typically attempt to define it, only to find many exceptions. A struggle to find rules for our society is in my opinion necessary, because only then do we realize the finer more problematic situations. Ambiguity is genius in terms of laws, because of the originality of almost every case sent to court being so different. Laws are guidelines for enforcers to go by, judges and juries are to pay special attention to a certain situation, and constitutional amendments happen when we find a case that requires further guidelines that will most likely be needed for future situations.

As society evolves, our penal system must follow suit, an ever-molding rulebook in which is able to keep most of us in line.

And people wonder why the United States is so successful.