5 ms·

I care not about if some individual gets a speeding ticket on the other side of town. I have zero revenge ideas. I do care that I am (and others are) aware the

I care not about if some individual gets a speeding ticket on the other side of town. I have zero revenge ideas. I do care that I am (and others are) aware there are consequences to speeding. That is a direct, and explicit deterrent to me. It is also a social contract that I or others who break this contract will be punished. That is a comforting thought. Why is it that I am comfortable crossing the intersection when I have a green light? Because I have confidence that those who would break the social contract of following agreed upon laws will be punished, so they are deterred from breaking them. I cross without hesitation. We think of others as having near-similar ethics (following social rules) as we do. When such contract is broken and punished I am appalled not because I want vengeance, but because I am relying for my life to keep such contract. Punishment is a deterrent, not vengeance. Ethics and morals must not die. I am really trying not to be cynical about the article's framing.

Gordonjcp 4y ago
> Why is it that I am comfortable crossing the intersection when I have a green light? Because I have confidence that those who would break the social contract of following agreed upon laws will be punished, so they are deterred from breaking them. It's really quite telling that in countries where religious strictures are held to be more important than individual freedom, like the US, the prevailing attitude is that "people will only do the right thing if they are afraid of being punished if they don't". Whereas, in a country like the UK, with considerably more rights and freedoms and less reliance on Judeo-Christian religion, the idea is that "people will do the right thing, because they expect others to do the right thing in return".
- ericmcer 4y ago
  That isn’t unique to the UK, every country has a moral code and the general populace will be hesitant to break it. Why do you think most people are willing to try drugs but very few would assault someone and steal their money. Both are illegal.
  - Gordonjcp 4y ago
    People in European countries - including the UK, despite what the right-wing Brexit idiots might think - tend not to steal not because they're afraid of getting caught but because they wouldn't want to be stolen from. More people are willing to take drugs illegally than they are to steal, because taking drugs does not directly deprive someone else of something. If you want to compare different kinds of theft, look at the difference between piracy versus shoplifting versus housebreaking. Most people of even a fairly high moral compass are okay with torrenting stuff because Disney has enough money and even a huge amount of people illegally downloading a movie that they wouldn't have paid to see anyway doesn't really "harm" Disney in any way. It is "theft of service", in that there are still the same number of physical copies and no-one has lost any physical goods, but someone somewhere has not been paid for their time. If you shoplifted a DVD, there would be one less DVD in that shop, that ultimately someone has paid for so it can be on the shelf. This breaks down further - you might shoplift it from Asda because (again) Asda has enough money, but you might not shoplift it from Wee Mad Bob's Magic Videos, because everyone knows Wee Mad Bob and he's an great guy who's struggling enough to keep his shop open, especially with the big new Asda opening up a video section. If you broke into someone's house, you'd be taking the conscious decision to enter someone else's space, and remove something they have chosen to have in their home. That crosses far more morality contour lines than buying a bit of shitty homegrown from some guy down the pub. TL;DR the US is more right-leaning and right-wing views tend to be amoral and "stealing is okay as long as you don't get caught", whereas Europe is more left-leaning and moral, and "stealing is not okay, because you wouldn't like it either".
    - ericmcer 4y ago
      This is a hilarious take. Your post is long but is essentially saying Europeans (but not right wing ones) more fully embrace "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". That you are more inclined towards the Judeo-Christian moral ideal than Americans. (Also strange as right wing parties have strong religious associations). Is your claim that Europeans have stronger/older ties to religion? Or that you are just better than Americans in some intangible manner.
- WaitWaitWha 4y ago
  I am not sure that your two points are counter to each other. I can be both afraid of being punished and can think that people will do the right thing. I sort of eluded to this, but you said it better, and help me crystalize it.
- gunshowmo 4y ago
  In what way does the UK have "considerably more rights and freedoms" than the US?
  - ojhughes 4y ago
    Kids have the freedom to go to school without fear of being shot. Mothers have the right to take 6 months paid maternity leave. Workers generally have more rights and protections, although this is getting worse.
  - watwut 4y ago
    Less fear of everything. Kids are mote likely to move freely around the town too.
  - Gordonjcp 4y ago
    You don't have armed police ready to shoot you because they don't like the look of you. There is no concept of "jaywalking", and indeed the idea that you'd get fined or even arrested for crossing the street is considered bizarre. You won't be sent to prison for the rest of your life for having a microscopic crumb of hash. You won't get bankrupted by hospital bills from a minor injury. You're not expected to work until you drop, with no paid annual leave or or sick leave. I could go on, but I think I've made my point.
- nickelpro 4y ago
  Rules and consequences exist because people have different ideas about what "the right thing" is, not because society thinks people are inherently immoral. Very few individuals believe their actions unjustified or that they are "the bad guy". If we went only be individuals self-assessment of their actions, there would be very few criminals.
lapcat 4y ago
> Why is it that I am comfortable crossing the intersection when I have a green light? Because I have confidence that those who would break the social contract of following agreed upon laws will be punished, so they are deterred from breaking them. I would say it's because most people have no desire to murder other people, even if they could get away with it legally.
- closeparen 4y ago
  Riding a bicycle around cars would pretty quickly dispel that notion.
  - lapcat 4y ago
    You think I haven't ridden a bicycle around cars? Are drivers sometimes headless? Yes. Are they murderous? No. Otherwise you and I would be dead now.
    - mantas 4y ago
      A possibility of punishment is a great way to remind to check whereabouts of one’s head…
    - pasiaj 4y ago
      Road rage and horribly antisocial driving behaviour exists. I don't think it usually includes murderous intent, but intentionally dangerous behaviour is quite common.
      - lapcat 4y ago
        Yes, they exist, they're illegal, and the legal consequences don't actually stop them. If the argument is that everyone would road rage and drive dangerously if there weren't legal consequences, I dispute that. Many people don't do it simply because they don't feel like doing it.
        4y ago
jimkleiber 4y ago
I wonder if there can be a difference in intention between "punishment" and "consequences." I personally hear punishment and think of an intention to harm, whereas hear consequences as lacking that intention, more of an intention to inform. For example, say that if someone runs a red light, they will receive a bill for $500. Am I giving them the bill because I believe they are a bad person and deserve to be punished? Or as a way to let them know that these are the rules and the consequences of the rules? I'm ok with the latter and can feel very sad at the former, as I think it just perpetuates pain and increases distance in society.
- at_a_remove 4y ago
  Inform? Do you really believe that they are uninformed, that they are unaware of the rules and that there are consequences for breaking said rules. People are not informed by speeding tickets. There is no element of surprise there. They knew the rules, they broke them anyway. Same with theft and so on. I could understand it for some obscure tax law, but basic things like this, no. Maybe you reached for the wrong verb there, but they are not ignorant of the rules.
  - jimkleiber 4y ago
    Maybe another verb would convey it better, I don't know. I do believe in letting people make choices as long as they know the consequences. I think most of us are vastly uninformed of all the consequences of such things. Sure, I know if I go over 45 I will get a speeding ticket. How much will it cost? How many points will I accumulate on the driver's license? How ashamed (or terrified) will I feel when the cop pulls me over? How ashamed will I feel when I tell someone I'm late because I got a ticket? How will it affect my insurance rates? Will I lose my license? How will my passenger feel, if there is one? I think there are many more consequences than just the first-order ones and I do believe most of us are uninformed or ignorant of the full scope.
rufus_foreman 4y ago
>> Why is it that I am comfortable crossing the intersection when I have a green light? Because I have confidence that those who would break the social contract of following agreed upon laws will be punished, so they are deterred from breaking them. Don't ever go to Phoenix.

Gordonjcp 4y ago

> Why is it that I am comfortable crossing the intersection when I have a green light? Because I have confidence that those who would break the social contract of following agreed upon laws will be punished, so they are deterred from breaking them. It's really quite telling that in countries where religious strictures are held to be more important than individual freedom, like the US, the prevailing attitude is that "people will only do the right thing if they are afraid of being punished if they don't". Whereas, in a country like the UK, with considerably more rights and freedoms and less reliance on Judeo-Christian religion, the idea is that "people will do the right thing, because they expect others to do the right thing in return".

ericmcer 4y ago
That isn’t unique to the UK, every country has a moral code and the general populace will be hesitant to break it. Why do you think most people are willing to try drugs but very few would assault someone and steal their money. Both are illegal.
- Gordonjcp 4y ago
  People in European countries - including the UK, despite what the right-wing Brexit idiots might think - tend not to steal not because they're afraid of getting caught but because they wouldn't want to be stolen from. More people are willing to take drugs illegally than they are to steal, because taking drugs does not directly deprive someone else of something. If you want to compare different kinds of theft, look at the difference between piracy versus shoplifting versus housebreaking. Most people of even a fairly high moral compass are okay with torrenting stuff because Disney has enough money and even a huge amount of people illegally downloading a movie that they wouldn't have paid to see anyway doesn't really "harm" Disney in any way. It is "theft of service", in that there are still the same number of physical copies and no-one has lost any physical goods, but someone somewhere has not been paid for their time. If you shoplifted a DVD, there would be one less DVD in that shop, that ultimately someone has paid for so it can be on the shelf. This breaks down further - you might shoplift it from Asda because (again) Asda has enough money, but you might not shoplift it from Wee Mad Bob's Magic Videos, because everyone knows Wee Mad Bob and he's an great guy who's struggling enough to keep his shop open, especially with the big new Asda opening up a video section. If you broke into someone's house, you'd be taking the conscious decision to enter someone else's space, and remove something they have chosen to have in their home. That crosses far more morality contour lines than buying a bit of shitty homegrown from some guy down the pub. TL;DR the US is more right-leaning and right-wing views tend to be amoral and "stealing is okay as long as you don't get caught", whereas Europe is more left-leaning and moral, and "stealing is not okay, because you wouldn't like it either".
  - ericmcer 4y ago
    This is a hilarious take. Your post is long but is essentially saying Europeans (but not right wing ones) more fully embrace "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". That you are more inclined towards the Judeo-Christian moral ideal than Americans. (Also strange as right wing parties have strong religious associations). Is your claim that Europeans have stronger/older ties to religion? Or that you are just better than Americans in some intangible manner.
WaitWaitWha 4y ago
I am not sure that your two points are counter to each other. I can be both afraid of being punished and can think that people will do the right thing. I sort of eluded to this, but you said it better, and help me crystalize it.
gunshowmo 4y ago
In what way does the UK have "considerably more rights and freedoms" than the US?
- ojhughes 4y ago
  Kids have the freedom to go to school without fear of being shot. Mothers have the right to take 6 months paid maternity leave. Workers generally have more rights and protections, although this is getting worse.
- watwut 4y ago
  Less fear of everything. Kids are mote likely to move freely around the town too.
- Gordonjcp 4y ago
  You don't have armed police ready to shoot you because they don't like the look of you. There is no concept of "jaywalking", and indeed the idea that you'd get fined or even arrested for crossing the street is considered bizarre. You won't be sent to prison for the rest of your life for having a microscopic crumb of hash. You won't get bankrupted by hospital bills from a minor injury. You're not expected to work until you drop, with no paid annual leave or or sick leave. I could go on, but I think I've made my point.
nickelpro 4y ago
Rules and consequences exist because people have different ideas about what "the right thing" is, not because society thinks people are inherently immoral. Very few individuals believe their actions unjustified or that they are "the bad guy". If we went only be individuals self-assessment of their actions, there would be very few criminals.

lapcat 4y ago

> Why is it that I am comfortable crossing the intersection when I have a green light? Because I have confidence that those who would break the social contract of following agreed upon laws will be punished, so they are deterred from breaking them. I would say it's because most people have no desire to murder other people, even if they could get away with it legally.

closeparen 4y ago
Riding a bicycle around cars would pretty quickly dispel that notion.
- lapcat 4y ago
  You think I haven't ridden a bicycle around cars? Are drivers sometimes headless? Yes. Are they murderous? No. Otherwise you and I would be dead now.
  - mantas 4y ago
    A possibility of punishment is a great way to remind to check whereabouts of one’s head…
  - pasiaj 4y ago
    Road rage and horribly antisocial driving behaviour exists. I don't think it usually includes murderous intent, but intentionally dangerous behaviour is quite common.
    - lapcat 4y ago
      Yes, they exist, they're illegal, and the legal consequences don't actually stop them. If the argument is that everyone would road rage and drive dangerously if there weren't legal consequences, I dispute that. Many people don't do it simply because they don't feel like doing it.
      - 4y ago

jimkleiber 4y ago

I wonder if there can be a difference in intention between "punishment" and "consequences." I personally hear punishment and think of an intention to harm, whereas hear consequences as lacking that intention, more of an intention to inform. For example, say that if someone runs a red light, they will receive a bill for $500. Am I giving them the bill because I believe they are a bad person and deserve to be punished? Or as a way to let them know that these are the rules and the consequences of the rules? I'm ok with the latter and can feel very sad at the former, as I think it just perpetuates pain and increases distance in society.

at_a_remove 4y ago
Inform? Do you really believe that they are uninformed, that they are unaware of the rules and that there are consequences for breaking said rules. People are not informed by speeding tickets. There is no element of surprise there. They knew the rules, they broke them anyway. Same with theft and so on. I could understand it for some obscure tax law, but basic things like this, no. Maybe you reached for the wrong verb there, but they are not ignorant of the rules.
- jimkleiber 4y ago
  Maybe another verb would convey it better, I don't know. I do believe in letting people make choices as long as they know the consequences. I think most of us are vastly uninformed of all the consequences of such things. Sure, I know if I go over 45 I will get a speeding ticket. How much will it cost? How many points will I accumulate on the driver's license? How ashamed (or terrified) will I feel when the cop pulls me over? How ashamed will I feel when I tell someone I'm late because I got a ticket? How will it affect my insurance rates? Will I lose my license? How will my passenger feel, if there is one? I think there are many more consequences than just the first-order ones and I do believe most of us are uninformed or ignorant of the full scope.

rufus_foreman 4y ago

>> Why is it that I am comfortable crossing the intersection when I have a green light? Because I have confidence that those who would break the social contract of following agreed upon laws will be punished, so they are deterred from breaking them. Don't ever go to Phoenix.