I can find humor in almost any situation. Humor is one of my main coping mechanisms. At funerals, I will often make jokes as I cry. There are those who will find this inappropriate or unsettling. So be it. Truth is complicated, and we are all different.
At the same time, if we choose to live around others, we must find a way to deal with each others feelings. Among the most frustrating phenomenons in human interaction are not being taken seriously, and not knowing whether to take someone else seriously.
Since I use humor as a coping mechanism, and am aware that some may be troubled by this, I try to always be ready to clarify my true feelings, and be aware of the true feelings of others. I do this by being straightforward. If I have made a joke, and someone incredulously asks, "Are you SERIOUS?" I will tell them the truth. Likewise, when I am serious, but someone incorrectly assumes that I am joking, I will attempt to assure them that I am serious.
This is the point at which I draw a clear line. Some people refuse to clarify their true feelings, and seem to believe that causing someone emotional pain makes their joke even funnier. Others refuse to acknowledge when someone is no longer joking.
This is a difficult subject to discuss, and definitely calls for examples. Imagine a situation with a group of people, especially children. One child snatches something away from another child, and then the children toss it between themselves while the original owner of the item tries to grab it back. This is a common scenario, and most people would consider it "playing around", and it MIGHT involve laughter by everyone involved. However, it could easily degenerate into crying and/or fighting. Even if it degenerates into clear emotional and/or physical pain, there are those who may continue to insist that it is all "in fun". This is a case in which people may be refusing to accept that what is "fun" for some is "serious" for others, or it may be that they ACCEPT it but still see no need to modify their actions.
This same basic scenario may play out in an infinite number of ways, with the common thread being that one or more people are "serious" while one or more people are "just having fun." Sometimes, those who are "just having fun" may truly be unaware that others are "serious", or those who are "serious" may be truly unaware that others are "just having fun."
This issue is perhaps more complicated than it appears to be, since it combines elements of communication, sensitivity to others, and questions regarding whether or not to modify one's own behavior in deference to the feelings of others. Personally, I find little humor in causing pain to others, even if I claim it is "in fun". At the same time, if I am having fun, and a complete stranger passes by and takes offense, I will not necessarily alter my activities.
More importantly, if I SAY I am serious, then I AM serious.
Truth is complicated.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Thursday, February 16, 2012
CPR
I recently read an article on the World Wide Web regarding an unfortunate case in which someone had collapsed at work, and a supervisor stopped a fellow employee from performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and now the person is dead.
As with many articles on the World Wide Web, there was a place at the end where readers could leave comments. The vast majority of the comments were very upset by the incident. Many stated that the supervisor was responsible for the death of the employee. This all occurred at a major corporation, and many stated that the corporation should be sued for the death of the employee.
Based on what was presented in the article, I agree that the supervisor was wrong to have stopped the co-worker from performing CPR. However, the comments illustrate the phenomenon that Americans wildly overestimate the effectiveness of CPR in saving a person’s life. Currently, the FACT is that CPR is truly effective somewhere between two and thirty percent of the time, depending on a variety of factors. This means that, statistically, there is a seventy to ninety-eight percent chance that the employee would have been dead even if CPR had been administered by the co-worker. The idea, voiced by many of the commenters, that the supervisor should be charged with manslaughter, or even murder, seems to be a bit of a stretch.
Then there is the commenters’ widespread notion that this major corporation should be sued for the death of the employee (based on the idea that by preventing CPR, the supervisor caused the death of the employee). Even with CPR, the employee probably would be dead, so this idea has little merit. Still, it remains true that the supervisor was wrong, and that CPR MIGHT have helped keep the employee alive. I have already discussed monetary damage awards in my earlier blog entry entitled “Damages”. Even if the supervisor WAS directly responsible for the death of the employee -- which this supervisor was NOT -- I fail to see the “correctness” of taking a large amount of money from this corporation, or from the corporation’s customers, or from all of the customers of the insurance company that insures the corporation, and giving it to the heirs of the dead employee. Fire, or even jail, the supervisor, if that is what the law deems appropriate, or perhaps punish the supervisor’s superiors, for failing to adequately train the supervisor -- but no amount of money will bring back the dead employee, and the idea that money will compensate for the death seems to me to be obscene.
As I stated in “Damages”, perhaps there could be some sort of voluntary pool into which sympathetic individuals could contribute money to go to the heirs of the dead employee. That would be fine with me.
Actually, I am a bit less sympathetic since the employee is already dead, and beyond the reach of monetary compensation. IF the employee had been left alive but disabled due to the actions of a supervisor, then monetary compensation seems more valid … but the idea that the employee’s HEIRS are now entitled to a million dollars (many commenters stated that the corporation should now be sued for millions of dollars) seems far-fetched.
Truth is complicated.
As with many articles on the World Wide Web, there was a place at the end where readers could leave comments. The vast majority of the comments were very upset by the incident. Many stated that the supervisor was responsible for the death of the employee. This all occurred at a major corporation, and many stated that the corporation should be sued for the death of the employee.
Based on what was presented in the article, I agree that the supervisor was wrong to have stopped the co-worker from performing CPR. However, the comments illustrate the phenomenon that Americans wildly overestimate the effectiveness of CPR in saving a person’s life. Currently, the FACT is that CPR is truly effective somewhere between two and thirty percent of the time, depending on a variety of factors. This means that, statistically, there is a seventy to ninety-eight percent chance that the employee would have been dead even if CPR had been administered by the co-worker. The idea, voiced by many of the commenters, that the supervisor should be charged with manslaughter, or even murder, seems to be a bit of a stretch.
Then there is the commenters’ widespread notion that this major corporation should be sued for the death of the employee (based on the idea that by preventing CPR, the supervisor caused the death of the employee). Even with CPR, the employee probably would be dead, so this idea has little merit. Still, it remains true that the supervisor was wrong, and that CPR MIGHT have helped keep the employee alive. I have already discussed monetary damage awards in my earlier blog entry entitled “Damages”. Even if the supervisor WAS directly responsible for the death of the employee -- which this supervisor was NOT -- I fail to see the “correctness” of taking a large amount of money from this corporation, or from the corporation’s customers, or from all of the customers of the insurance company that insures the corporation, and giving it to the heirs of the dead employee. Fire, or even jail, the supervisor, if that is what the law deems appropriate, or perhaps punish the supervisor’s superiors, for failing to adequately train the supervisor -- but no amount of money will bring back the dead employee, and the idea that money will compensate for the death seems to me to be obscene.
As I stated in “Damages”, perhaps there could be some sort of voluntary pool into which sympathetic individuals could contribute money to go to the heirs of the dead employee. That would be fine with me.
Actually, I am a bit less sympathetic since the employee is already dead, and beyond the reach of monetary compensation. IF the employee had been left alive but disabled due to the actions of a supervisor, then monetary compensation seems more valid … but the idea that the employee’s HEIRS are now entitled to a million dollars (many commenters stated that the corporation should now be sued for millions of dollars) seems far-fetched.
Truth is complicated.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Newt Gingrich
For months, and continuing today, political supporters of President Obama have pointed to the lack of a dominant Republican Presidential candidate as "evidence" that potential Republican voters are divided, and unsatisfied with the present pool of candidates. The truth is that Republican voters are remarkably united in their desire to have ANYONE other than Barack Obama elected President in 2012, and the lack of a clear frontrunner MAY indicate only that most Republicans would be satisfied with most of the candidates.
Increasingly, however, Newt Gingrich seems to be splitting off from this view, instead embracing the idea that the winner of the 2012 Presidential election should be anyone other than Mitt Romney. I suppose if you came right out and ASKED him directly whether he would prefer Romney to Obama, he would say that he WOULD, but his recent words and actions seem to indicate otherwise.
Unless he knows something about Romney, and something about Obama, that I do NOT know, I find this to be deeply troubling for someone seeking the Republican nomination to challenge Obama next fall. At this point, given the likelihood or at least the possibility that Romney will be the Republican nominee, Gingrich seems to be working more FOR the re-election of President Obama than he is working AGAINST the re-election of President Obama.
Many Americans are working for the re-election of President Obama. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with working for the re-election of President Obama. He might be the best candidate. However, for one of those seeking the Republican nomination for President, it is puzzling and deeply troubling.
There are some, perhaps including Gingrich himself, who argue that even the most vicious personal attacks against Mitt Romney serve to harden and prepare him for the contest against Obama. While there may be a small degree of truth in this, I see it as an unintended consequence of Gingrich's true malice toward Romney.
IF Mitt Romney is the eventual Republican Presidential candidate, and Barack Obama defeats him, then I will believe at least some of the credit or blame should be assigned to Newt Gingrich. I do not know Newt Gingrich, and I cannot claim to know what is in his head, let alone his heart, but I have faith that he is politically experienced and knowledgable, and I cannot understand how HE could be looking at the present situation any differently than I am looking at it. Unless he truly IS working to secure the re-election of President Obama, then his only semi-plausible explanation is that he believes Mitt Romney has absolutely NO chance of defeating Barack Obama, with or without the assistance of Newt Gingrich, and therefore his weakening of Romney's candidacy is insignificant. IF this is his explanation -- and I am NOT saying that it IS -- then he would be guilty of either horrendous judgment, great arrogance, or presumed ability to predict the future ... none of which I particularly desire in a President of the United States.
The situation remains fluid, with three recent wins by Rick Santorum. I do not claim to know who will win the Republican nomination. At this point, Newt Gingrich does not seem to deserve it.
Increasingly, however, Newt Gingrich seems to be splitting off from this view, instead embracing the idea that the winner of the 2012 Presidential election should be anyone other than Mitt Romney. I suppose if you came right out and ASKED him directly whether he would prefer Romney to Obama, he would say that he WOULD, but his recent words and actions seem to indicate otherwise.
Unless he knows something about Romney, and something about Obama, that I do NOT know, I find this to be deeply troubling for someone seeking the Republican nomination to challenge Obama next fall. At this point, given the likelihood or at least the possibility that Romney will be the Republican nominee, Gingrich seems to be working more FOR the re-election of President Obama than he is working AGAINST the re-election of President Obama.
Many Americans are working for the re-election of President Obama. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with working for the re-election of President Obama. He might be the best candidate. However, for one of those seeking the Republican nomination for President, it is puzzling and deeply troubling.
There are some, perhaps including Gingrich himself, who argue that even the most vicious personal attacks against Mitt Romney serve to harden and prepare him for the contest against Obama. While there may be a small degree of truth in this, I see it as an unintended consequence of Gingrich's true malice toward Romney.
IF Mitt Romney is the eventual Republican Presidential candidate, and Barack Obama defeats him, then I will believe at least some of the credit or blame should be assigned to Newt Gingrich. I do not know Newt Gingrich, and I cannot claim to know what is in his head, let alone his heart, but I have faith that he is politically experienced and knowledgable, and I cannot understand how HE could be looking at the present situation any differently than I am looking at it. Unless he truly IS working to secure the re-election of President Obama, then his only semi-plausible explanation is that he believes Mitt Romney has absolutely NO chance of defeating Barack Obama, with or without the assistance of Newt Gingrich, and therefore his weakening of Romney's candidacy is insignificant. IF this is his explanation -- and I am NOT saying that it IS -- then he would be guilty of either horrendous judgment, great arrogance, or presumed ability to predict the future ... none of which I particularly desire in a President of the United States.
The situation remains fluid, with three recent wins by Rick Santorum. I do not claim to know who will win the Republican nomination. At this point, Newt Gingrich does not seem to deserve it.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Modifying Art
In a previous blog entry, I have attempted to discuss “art”.
Art is regularly modified. The modification takes different forms, depending on the form of the original art. Famous paintings are reproduced in various ways, sometimes parodied, and sometimes restored. It is important to note that only the “restoration” involves direct modification to the original artwork itself, and, theoretically, the aim is to return the painting to a form more closely matching its original state.
Modifying is more complicated with other forms of art, such as literature, music, or video. Books are routinely translated into different languages, or sometimes a more “current” version of the same language. In this case, the stated goal is generally to retain as much of the author’s intentions as possible. Music is always subject to new “arrangements” and interpretations. Even a particular recording may be modified and re-issued, hopefully taking advantage of technical advancements. Movies can be completely re-made, with new actors and variations in plot, OR the original film may be colorized or added to or subtracted from. Again, in all these cases, theoretically the “original” art remains unchanged and unharmed.
For me, an important aspect of art modification involves WHO is doing the modifying. If, say, a painter chooses to modify one of their own famous paintings, or even destroy it, it’s hard for me to argue with their decision -- though the fact that the “original” work of art may be totally lost in the process is still deeply troubling. If a composer or film-maker chooses to modify their composition or film, chances are that the original work will still exist in some form, and still be somehow accessible. This is not to say that I will not regret their decision. Often, I consider artist’s original efforts to be superior to their modified versions.
When someone other than the original artist is doing the modifying, my emotions are much less conflicted. In 2001, the Afghanistan Taliban deliberately destroyed a pair of large Buddha statues, on religious grounds. While this is a special case, complicated by the religious aspect, I believe that this destruction was an atrocity against all humanity.
The question of what constitutes art becomes important here. It would be theoretically possible for anyone with enough wealth to acquire well-known great works of art and then deliberately destroy them, usually without specifically violating any laws (moral laws, perhaps, but not legal laws). While destroying something such as da Vinci’s “Mona Lisa” would be universally condemned, lesser-known and unknown works of art -- such as things from forgotten elementary school art classes -- are destroyed every day, often without objection. While there is clearly a difference between the Mona Lisa and the wastebasket I painted with tempura paints in elementary school, I do not know precisely where the line falls between art that should be preserved and art that is disposable. (Incidentally, the wastebasket has lasted for decades, and will probably survive for at least the rest of my lifetime.)
Recently, there have been several cases in the news of art being modified to make it more politically correct, or less objectionable. One of the most famous debates in recent years has to do with the book “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” and its repeated use of a derogatory term for members of a certain race -- a recent edition of the book replaces this word with the word “slave”. A similar, though less lofty and well-known, case cites the 1985 song “Money for Nothing”, which uses a derogatory term for people of a certain sexual orientation. Defenders of both the book and the song point out that the creators of the art were using the terms not only to accurately reflect other people’s uses of those terms, but to criticize the use of these terms. These are complicated cases, and I am uncertain of the correct course in cases such as this, although my sentiments generally favor leaving the original art uncensored.
The situation is even more complicated when the original artists cannot be considered to have had such noble goals. For example, there are hundreds of songs -- probably thousands, world-wide -- that originally used lyrics that are now considered controversial or objectionable. In some cases, the songs are now commonly performed with a few words altered. In other cases, the objectionable terms are so deeply ingrained in the song that they can either no longer be publicly performed, or can only be performed without words. Although I acknowledge that this is extremely complicated, I generally favor still performing the songs, including all the objectionable words. Just as an actor in a play or motion picture is not actually advocating the actions performed by his character, the singer of a song is not actually advocating the point of view expressed in the song. It is, after all, art. And, art that depicts murder or racism or intolerance is NOT intrinsically advocating murder or racism or intolerance -- though, to be fair, sometimes art IS advocating some particular point of view.
An especially controversial case involves making things “gender neutral”. The church where I often attend Christmas Eve services no longer sings the Christmas carol “Good Christian Men, Rejoice” -- they now sing “Good Christian Friends, Rejoice”. Personally, I find this modification deeply troubling … but I realize that there are other intelligent, thoughtful, rational people who find the un-modified version of the song deeply troubling … so I have no clear answers.
This entire discussion leads to a separate but related discussion regarding intolerance and over-simplification and labeling. As a general rule, I do NOT go around publicly singing songs with lyrics that are now considered objectionable, even though I firmly believe that many of these songs SHOULD be sung. The problem is that as an occupant of this world, I must live with others who may simply condemn me forever, rather than contemplate the fact that truth is complicated.
Art is regularly modified. The modification takes different forms, depending on the form of the original art. Famous paintings are reproduced in various ways, sometimes parodied, and sometimes restored. It is important to note that only the “restoration” involves direct modification to the original artwork itself, and, theoretically, the aim is to return the painting to a form more closely matching its original state.
Modifying is more complicated with other forms of art, such as literature, music, or video. Books are routinely translated into different languages, or sometimes a more “current” version of the same language. In this case, the stated goal is generally to retain as much of the author’s intentions as possible. Music is always subject to new “arrangements” and interpretations. Even a particular recording may be modified and re-issued, hopefully taking advantage of technical advancements. Movies can be completely re-made, with new actors and variations in plot, OR the original film may be colorized or added to or subtracted from. Again, in all these cases, theoretically the “original” art remains unchanged and unharmed.
For me, an important aspect of art modification involves WHO is doing the modifying. If, say, a painter chooses to modify one of their own famous paintings, or even destroy it, it’s hard for me to argue with their decision -- though the fact that the “original” work of art may be totally lost in the process is still deeply troubling. If a composer or film-maker chooses to modify their composition or film, chances are that the original work will still exist in some form, and still be somehow accessible. This is not to say that I will not regret their decision. Often, I consider artist’s original efforts to be superior to their modified versions.
When someone other than the original artist is doing the modifying, my emotions are much less conflicted. In 2001, the Afghanistan Taliban deliberately destroyed a pair of large Buddha statues, on religious grounds. While this is a special case, complicated by the religious aspect, I believe that this destruction was an atrocity against all humanity.
The question of what constitutes art becomes important here. It would be theoretically possible for anyone with enough wealth to acquire well-known great works of art and then deliberately destroy them, usually without specifically violating any laws (moral laws, perhaps, but not legal laws). While destroying something such as da Vinci’s “Mona Lisa” would be universally condemned, lesser-known and unknown works of art -- such as things from forgotten elementary school art classes -- are destroyed every day, often without objection. While there is clearly a difference between the Mona Lisa and the wastebasket I painted with tempura paints in elementary school, I do not know precisely where the line falls between art that should be preserved and art that is disposable. (Incidentally, the wastebasket has lasted for decades, and will probably survive for at least the rest of my lifetime.)
Recently, there have been several cases in the news of art being modified to make it more politically correct, or less objectionable. One of the most famous debates in recent years has to do with the book “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” and its repeated use of a derogatory term for members of a certain race -- a recent edition of the book replaces this word with the word “slave”. A similar, though less lofty and well-known, case cites the 1985 song “Money for Nothing”, which uses a derogatory term for people of a certain sexual orientation. Defenders of both the book and the song point out that the creators of the art were using the terms not only to accurately reflect other people’s uses of those terms, but to criticize the use of these terms. These are complicated cases, and I am uncertain of the correct course in cases such as this, although my sentiments generally favor leaving the original art uncensored.
The situation is even more complicated when the original artists cannot be considered to have had such noble goals. For example, there are hundreds of songs -- probably thousands, world-wide -- that originally used lyrics that are now considered controversial or objectionable. In some cases, the songs are now commonly performed with a few words altered. In other cases, the objectionable terms are so deeply ingrained in the song that they can either no longer be publicly performed, or can only be performed without words. Although I acknowledge that this is extremely complicated, I generally favor still performing the songs, including all the objectionable words. Just as an actor in a play or motion picture is not actually advocating the actions performed by his character, the singer of a song is not actually advocating the point of view expressed in the song. It is, after all, art. And, art that depicts murder or racism or intolerance is NOT intrinsically advocating murder or racism or intolerance -- though, to be fair, sometimes art IS advocating some particular point of view.
An especially controversial case involves making things “gender neutral”. The church where I often attend Christmas Eve services no longer sings the Christmas carol “Good Christian Men, Rejoice” -- they now sing “Good Christian Friends, Rejoice”. Personally, I find this modification deeply troubling … but I realize that there are other intelligent, thoughtful, rational people who find the un-modified version of the song deeply troubling … so I have no clear answers.
This entire discussion leads to a separate but related discussion regarding intolerance and over-simplification and labeling. As a general rule, I do NOT go around publicly singing songs with lyrics that are now considered objectionable, even though I firmly believe that many of these songs SHOULD be sung. The problem is that as an occupant of this world, I must live with others who may simply condemn me forever, rather than contemplate the fact that truth is complicated.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Art
Art is perhaps too complicated a topic to even attempt to discuss. I like to begin a discussion with a basic (if inadequate) definition. The complexity of discussing “art” stems from the fact that the very definition is complicated, controversial, and elusive. The Wikipedia entry on “art” gives a definition from Britannica Online, which I suppose is as good as any: “the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others”. Wikipedia also notes that philosopher Richard Wollheim describes the nature of art as “one of the most elusive of the traditional problems of human culture”.
Questions regarding “What is art?” can become highly emotional, and are impossible to answer objectively. Like beauty, art is in the eye of the beholder. While I personally am more comfortable with using the term “art” to describe things like paintings and sculptures and music and literature, almost ANYTHING can be viewed as art, and I cannot objectively disagree with someone whose definition of art is different from mine.
At the same time, if we agree to label EVERYTHING as “art”, then the term loses all meaning and usefulness, just as if we were to label all colors shades of “blue”.
In the end, I suppose we must simply acknowledge that each of us has our own standards not only for what constitutes “art”, but also for what “art” we personally find appealing. I would be happier coming up with some objective judgement on what constitutes art, or at least some way to assure that those who were claiming something was “art” were at least sincerely representing their own view, but I know of no way to accomplish either of these goals.
Truth is complicated.
Questions regarding “What is art?” can become highly emotional, and are impossible to answer objectively. Like beauty, art is in the eye of the beholder. While I personally am more comfortable with using the term “art” to describe things like paintings and sculptures and music and literature, almost ANYTHING can be viewed as art, and I cannot objectively disagree with someone whose definition of art is different from mine.
At the same time, if we agree to label EVERYTHING as “art”, then the term loses all meaning and usefulness, just as if we were to label all colors shades of “blue”.
In the end, I suppose we must simply acknowledge that each of us has our own standards not only for what constitutes “art”, but also for what “art” we personally find appealing. I would be happier coming up with some objective judgement on what constitutes art, or at least some way to assure that those who were claiming something was “art” were at least sincerely representing their own view, but I know of no way to accomplish either of these goals.
Truth is complicated.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Capital Punishment
I am in favor of capital punishment , though I hasten to add that at the present time, there seem to be insurmountable problems with actually USING capital punishment.
Wikipedia defines capital punishment as “the infliction of death upon a person by judicial process as a punishment for an offence”, which I suppose is as good a definition as any. In recent years, the entire idea of capital punishment has become increasingly controversial, and it has been abolished in many countries and individual US states.
People on both sides of the issue have an almost infinite number of reasons for their positions. Curiously, one of the reasons some Americans oppose capital punishment is that under our present system, it ends up costing much more to execute a convicted criminal than to keep them incarcerated for life.
For me, there are currently TWO good reasons NOT to use capital punishment. The most serious is the fact that our system does not do such a good job of determining guilt or innocence. When a person sentenced to prison is later determined to be innocent, they can be released (which does not make up for wrongly imprisoning them, but it’s better than keeping them in prison). When an executed person is later determined to be innocent, there is no solution. Still, in certain cases, this “guilt or innocence” problem can be overcome. In certain cases there is NO reasonable doubt about guilt.
The more insurmountable problem with capital punishment is harder to put into words. Basically, it is the idea that we need a more serious punishment to hold over the heads of lesser criminals to keep the less serious crimes from becoming more serious ones. For instance, I believe that rape should be a capital offense -- though there is still the problem of separating the innocent from the guilty. However, if the punishment for rape was the same as the punishment for murder, a rapist might conclude that they should go ahead and murder their victim, rather than risk the victim testifying against them.
It is this second problem that may be impossible to overcome. Even if we come up with ways to absolutely separate the guilty from the innocent, we will still need a way to prevent the “smaller” crimes from escalating. If not for this problem, I would favor capital punishment for a shocking variety of lesser crimes.
There is a third serious problem with my visions for capital punishment, but this problem applies to almost all crimes and punishments. Potential criminals must both understand what actions are considered illegal, and realize that they will truly face punishment. As an example, take “speeding”. Currently, most American drivers do not consider driving a few miles per hour over the posted limit to be “speeding”, or at least they do not believe they will be punished for driving a few miles per hour over the posted limit. Personally, I would like this to change, and have the posted speed limit be the ACTUAL “limit” -- the fastest that a person could drive while avoiding punishment. However, I realize that under our current system this would be unfair, since no one is AWARE that they risk punishment for driving 56 miles per hour when the posted “limit” is 55.
The same applies to capital punishment. IF we made shoplifting a capital offense, then people would have to be AWARE that shoplifting was a capital offense. By the way, I am NOT arguing that shoplifting should be a capital offense. However, if there was some way to solve these three problems, I would favor capital punishment for a wide variety of crimes -- many of them malicious rather than serious. For example, if someone deliberately throws a brick through your window, I would consider capital punishment -- IF there was some way to absolutely determine that they were guilty of intentionally doing this maliciously, AND there was some way to keep smaller crimes from escalating into larger ones, AND everyone was AWARE that brick-throwing was a capital offense.
I have not addressed any of the other objections to capital punishment. Basically, my belief is that we presently have too many people on earth, AND we are not very good at actually “rehabilitating” prisoners, and therefore capital punishment, though far from perfect, makes sense on a philosophical level. But I cannot overcome those two problems.
I am left in the awkward position of favoring capital punishment on a philosophical level, but opposing it in many cases unless we come up with a way to overcome those problems. By the way, I am basically okay with those few cases in which our society currently uses capital punishment, since I am fairly certain those particular people have actually been proven guilty.
Truth is complicated.
Wikipedia defines capital punishment as “the infliction of death upon a person by judicial process as a punishment for an offence”, which I suppose is as good a definition as any. In recent years, the entire idea of capital punishment has become increasingly controversial, and it has been abolished in many countries and individual US states.
People on both sides of the issue have an almost infinite number of reasons for their positions. Curiously, one of the reasons some Americans oppose capital punishment is that under our present system, it ends up costing much more to execute a convicted criminal than to keep them incarcerated for life.
For me, there are currently TWO good reasons NOT to use capital punishment. The most serious is the fact that our system does not do such a good job of determining guilt or innocence. When a person sentenced to prison is later determined to be innocent, they can be released (which does not make up for wrongly imprisoning them, but it’s better than keeping them in prison). When an executed person is later determined to be innocent, there is no solution. Still, in certain cases, this “guilt or innocence” problem can be overcome. In certain cases there is NO reasonable doubt about guilt.
The more insurmountable problem with capital punishment is harder to put into words. Basically, it is the idea that we need a more serious punishment to hold over the heads of lesser criminals to keep the less serious crimes from becoming more serious ones. For instance, I believe that rape should be a capital offense -- though there is still the problem of separating the innocent from the guilty. However, if the punishment for rape was the same as the punishment for murder, a rapist might conclude that they should go ahead and murder their victim, rather than risk the victim testifying against them.
It is this second problem that may be impossible to overcome. Even if we come up with ways to absolutely separate the guilty from the innocent, we will still need a way to prevent the “smaller” crimes from escalating. If not for this problem, I would favor capital punishment for a shocking variety of lesser crimes.
There is a third serious problem with my visions for capital punishment, but this problem applies to almost all crimes and punishments. Potential criminals must both understand what actions are considered illegal, and realize that they will truly face punishment. As an example, take “speeding”. Currently, most American drivers do not consider driving a few miles per hour over the posted limit to be “speeding”, or at least they do not believe they will be punished for driving a few miles per hour over the posted limit. Personally, I would like this to change, and have the posted speed limit be the ACTUAL “limit” -- the fastest that a person could drive while avoiding punishment. However, I realize that under our current system this would be unfair, since no one is AWARE that they risk punishment for driving 56 miles per hour when the posted “limit” is 55.
The same applies to capital punishment. IF we made shoplifting a capital offense, then people would have to be AWARE that shoplifting was a capital offense. By the way, I am NOT arguing that shoplifting should be a capital offense. However, if there was some way to solve these three problems, I would favor capital punishment for a wide variety of crimes -- many of them malicious rather than serious. For example, if someone deliberately throws a brick through your window, I would consider capital punishment -- IF there was some way to absolutely determine that they were guilty of intentionally doing this maliciously, AND there was some way to keep smaller crimes from escalating into larger ones, AND everyone was AWARE that brick-throwing was a capital offense.
I have not addressed any of the other objections to capital punishment. Basically, my belief is that we presently have too many people on earth, AND we are not very good at actually “rehabilitating” prisoners, and therefore capital punishment, though far from perfect, makes sense on a philosophical level. But I cannot overcome those two problems.
I am left in the awkward position of favoring capital punishment on a philosophical level, but opposing it in many cases unless we come up with a way to overcome those problems. By the way, I am basically okay with those few cases in which our society currently uses capital punishment, since I am fairly certain those particular people have actually been proven guilty.
Truth is complicated.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Exaggeration
I am often accused of exaggeration when attempting to accurately state my feelings. Even worse, sometimes people simply assume I am exaggerating, without stating their belief that I am exaggerating. This makes communication difficult.
If I feel quite strongly about something that you cannot imagine feeling strongly about, it is understandable that you might assume I am exaggerating. Unfortunately, this happens at the very moment I am trying to communicate the fact that I feel strongly about something that you cannot imagine feeling strongly about. The question becomes whether there is any way to effectively communicate these strong feelings that seem so totally outside of another person's perspective.
A true example: Ice cream is one of my favorite foods. Ice cream with peanuts is one of the worst substances I can imagine putting in my mouth. This is my opinion, and my preference, and it does not necessarily make sense, but it is truly the way that I feel. Generally, if you put peanuts on ice cream, and then attempt to remove them, some of the flavor remains behind, if not some of the actual peanuts, and I do not ever wish to consume ice cream that has ever had even a trace of contact with peanuts. I understand that my strong feelings on the subject of ice cream with peanuts are unusual and difficult to grasp, so when the situation arises, I try to make them clear. Here are a couple of true statements:
1) If you gave me a choice between consuming a dish of ice cream topped with a single peanut, or a dish of something commonly considered horrible, like animal excrement, there is a good chance I would choose the thing commonly considered horrible.
2) Even though ice cream is one of my favorite foods, if I became convinced that SOMETIME in the future my ice cream would in fact contain a peanut, I would seriously consider never consuming ice cream again, just to avoid the risk.
Anyone hearing or reading either or both of these statements can be forgiven for assuming that I am exaggerating, but I am NOT. I really, really, do not like ice cream with peanuts, and it doesn't help to "ignore them" or "scrape them off". I would rather just not eat ice cream that has been in any way contaminated with peanuts. Again, the question is whether there is any way of actually communicating these strong feelings, since most people will simply assume that I am exaggerating when I try to state my feelings.
The previous example may have been too inflammatory. Anyone reading this may simply be thinking, "This person is a wacko. NOBODY could dislike peanuts in ice cream THAT much." Of course, this illustrates my point. If someone expresses strong feelings that seem unusual and foreign to you, one of the easy, understandable routes is to assume that they are exaggerating. (Another route is to consider them to be a wacko.)
I have not addressed the fact that sometimes people truly do exaggerate. This leads to a "boy who cried wolf" phenomenon. Frequent exaggerations make people anticipate more exaggerations, even if one person is doing the exaggerating, and a completely separate person is attempting to accurately state a strong but unlikely belief.
In earlier postings I have pointed out that sometimes I can clearly see a problem, but cannot see any solution. This is one of those areas. It is a problem that people attempting to accurately express strong feelings are often believed to be exaggerating. I guess a partial solution would be to come right out and ASK whether a person is exaggerating in cases in which you are having trouble accepting their stated strength of emotion. This approach has various pitfalls, including the facts that the person might lie to you or to themselves, or that the person might be insulted by the question. Another partial solution is to do your best to accurately state your own strong feelings, without exaggeration. Still, the problem remains.
Truth is complicated.
If I feel quite strongly about something that you cannot imagine feeling strongly about, it is understandable that you might assume I am exaggerating. Unfortunately, this happens at the very moment I am trying to communicate the fact that I feel strongly about something that you cannot imagine feeling strongly about. The question becomes whether there is any way to effectively communicate these strong feelings that seem so totally outside of another person's perspective.
A true example: Ice cream is one of my favorite foods. Ice cream with peanuts is one of the worst substances I can imagine putting in my mouth. This is my opinion, and my preference, and it does not necessarily make sense, but it is truly the way that I feel. Generally, if you put peanuts on ice cream, and then attempt to remove them, some of the flavor remains behind, if not some of the actual peanuts, and I do not ever wish to consume ice cream that has ever had even a trace of contact with peanuts. I understand that my strong feelings on the subject of ice cream with peanuts are unusual and difficult to grasp, so when the situation arises, I try to make them clear. Here are a couple of true statements:
1) If you gave me a choice between consuming a dish of ice cream topped with a single peanut, or a dish of something commonly considered horrible, like animal excrement, there is a good chance I would choose the thing commonly considered horrible.
2) Even though ice cream is one of my favorite foods, if I became convinced that SOMETIME in the future my ice cream would in fact contain a peanut, I would seriously consider never consuming ice cream again, just to avoid the risk.
Anyone hearing or reading either or both of these statements can be forgiven for assuming that I am exaggerating, but I am NOT. I really, really, do not like ice cream with peanuts, and it doesn't help to "ignore them" or "scrape them off". I would rather just not eat ice cream that has been in any way contaminated with peanuts. Again, the question is whether there is any way of actually communicating these strong feelings, since most people will simply assume that I am exaggerating when I try to state my feelings.
The previous example may have been too inflammatory. Anyone reading this may simply be thinking, "This person is a wacko. NOBODY could dislike peanuts in ice cream THAT much." Of course, this illustrates my point. If someone expresses strong feelings that seem unusual and foreign to you, one of the easy, understandable routes is to assume that they are exaggerating. (Another route is to consider them to be a wacko.)
I have not addressed the fact that sometimes people truly do exaggerate. This leads to a "boy who cried wolf" phenomenon. Frequent exaggerations make people anticipate more exaggerations, even if one person is doing the exaggerating, and a completely separate person is attempting to accurately state a strong but unlikely belief.
In earlier postings I have pointed out that sometimes I can clearly see a problem, but cannot see any solution. This is one of those areas. It is a problem that people attempting to accurately express strong feelings are often believed to be exaggerating. I guess a partial solution would be to come right out and ASK whether a person is exaggerating in cases in which you are having trouble accepting their stated strength of emotion. This approach has various pitfalls, including the facts that the person might lie to you or to themselves, or that the person might be insulted by the question. Another partial solution is to do your best to accurately state your own strong feelings, without exaggeration. Still, the problem remains.
Truth is complicated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)