What makes a person irredeemable?

[JoesshittyOs]

This girl. There is no punishment too just to deal with the sheer bitchocity of this girls words.

 

[FalloutJack]

When somebody does something bad and everybody tries to top each other screaming "He should be killed" "No, he should be killed twice" "No, he should be tortured, killed, then tortured again and then killed and his ashes then stomped upon!" just like kindergarten children.

I sense that, somehow, the point has been missed here. The question was to determine what YOU think, not what others do while making cynical commentary. Granted, cynical commmentary has its place, but not when people are feeling particularly sadistic over the bastard of the month.

OT: I tend to believe that a good start and a guideline is the law. Not the letter of the law, but what it stands for. The spirit of it, made to punish for crimes and not for lawyers to defend the obviously guilty via a small technicality. If you kill without reasonable cause, and I mean a PROPER reason, you die. There are others, I'm sure. I also hold no love for businesses and businessmen who deliberately screw others for profit and skew the economy, rapists and pedophiles, and people who do not even TRY to comprehend the world that's rushing by them at breakneck speed.

Oh, and I happen to believe that people who ARE irredeemable should indeed suffer. Be it ironic or viceral or whatever the law dishes out - just make it hurt. They need to understand that what they did was a BAD idea in some deeply personal way, since their upbringing did nothing to render this fact clear to them.

 

[DoPo]

When somebody does something bad and everybody tries to top each other screaming "He should be killed" "No, he should be killed twice" "No, he should be tortured, killed, then tortured again and then killed and his ashes then stomped upon!" just like kindergarten children.

I sense that, somehow, the point has been missed here. The question was to determine what YOU think, not what others do while making cynical commentary. Granted, cynical commmentary has its place, but not when people are feeling particularly sadistic over the bastard of the month.

Yes, I agree - you really missed the point. It's when society denies people redemption. That's when I think redemption is impossible.

 

[Random Fella]

I run by the rule of an eye for an eye really
To deserve death, they would have had to committed unjust murder
Or maybe other foul acts such as rape

 

[deadpoolhulk]

way i see it is as such. kill, sexually abuse, or cause serious harm to a child,on purpose and that's the point i wish a slow and horrific death upon you. i can think of no way anyone could ever be punished enough for it, except for the fact i believe hell exists so, you know, that will do nicely.

 

[Killertje]

Psychopaths (people without empathy) are irredeemable if they figure out being evil pays. They never feel bad when they make others suffer, because they just don't see how their actions make others feel.
When normal people hurt someone else (and know about it) they feel bad. They might still do it, because they value whatever they got out of it higher than the suffering they caused, but at least they know it was selfish. Psychopaths only see how things affect them, not others. You can tell them how their actions hurt others but that won't really register. All you can do is lock them up forever, but that's just cruel. It's not really their fault, it just sucks this condition exists.

 

[FalloutJack]

When somebody does something bad and everybody tries to top each other screaming "He should be killed" "No, he should be killed twice" "No, he should be tortured, killed, then tortured again and then killed and his ashes then stomped upon!" just like kindergarten children.

I sense that, somehow, the point has been missed here. The question was to determine what YOU think, not what others do while making cynical commentary. Granted, cynical commmentary has its place, but not when people are feeling particularly sadistic over the bastard of the month.

Yes, I agree - you really missed the point. It's when society denies people redemption. That's when I think redemption is impossible.

No, it was you. We have yet to hear

[HEADING=1]YOUR OPINION AND ONLY YOURS[/HEADING]

and you are still being a little irritant. Therefore, you have not contributed anything and go away please. You're obviously not up to this subject.

 

[TWRule]

To deem an action as heinous enough that a person would need to be redeemed from it, it must first conflict with other people's desires. If it conflicts with everyone else's desires then the action can be clearly labelled as "wrong". This is not sufficient to justify heinous, however, as petty theft falls into this category. For the action to be heinous, it needs to have a detrimental impact on the victim that cannot be completely recovered from, such as rape or murder. This can also apply to destruction of irreplacable property, resources, animals or the environment.

This principle is easily corrupted; "people's desires" and what is considered "detrimental" can be perverted in the view of a misguided "society". People often have misguided, perverse, or inconsistent foundations for their own desires as it is. Furthermore, one could argue that just about anything is possible to recover from short of being murdered from one perspective or another (even murder from a few particularly disturbing perspectives).

If a person keeps committing heinous acts that everyone views as wrong, and is incapable of change, then that person is irredeemable and society would be better off if he/she were forcibly prevented from performing those actions. The choice of incarceration, exile, death, or preventative punishment (such as cutting off the hands of thieves or the genitals of rapists) however can be a difficult one.

You said earlier that one just has to want change to be capable of it, but why does that have to mean a choice between conformity and punishment? If conforming means lowering themselves just so that their ideals coincide with others, how could you blame them for wanting *everyone else* to change?

Society might be better off; but whose team are we on here: society's or humanity's?

 

[lacktheknack]

Nothing. If the child-molesting mass-murdering genocidal Justin Bieber impersonator suddenly decides to drop it all and work in nursing homes for the rest of his life, I say let him.

 

[lacktheknack]

No such thing, since if "irredeemable" existed, the opposite would have to exist too - and I am not comfortable with a concept of someone being untouchable no matter how much bad stuff they do by virtue of having done something exceedingly good in the past.

I don't follow. Why does the presence of one thing preclude the existence of the exact opposite on a three-point scale?

I mean, we have "abysmal - functional - perfect", but we don't have anything that's well and truly "perfect" yet.

 

[Vegosiux]

I mean, we have "abysmal - functional - perfect", but we don't have anything that's well and truly "perfect" yet.

That's because we're naturally inclined to notice and remember the bad stuff. As a friend of mine put it one day, "Nobody notices when things go right." I'd argue we don't really have anything truly "abysmal" yet, but nobody is going to look harder to find a redeeming quality on something; while people will always look harder to find flaws.

 

[TWRule]

In regards to a perverse society, who can define which is perverse?

That was precisely my point. What is considered laudable today could be considered perverse tomorrow. Why are actions to be accepted as right just by virtue of majority rule?

If no-one's desires conflict, by definition it is a utopia of sorts as everyone is in harmony with everyone else.

Firstly, it's perfectly possible for everyone to be united in a perverse purpose. Secondly, you've already defined out contrary elements by punishing them (eventually killing them or otherwise removing them from the equation). In that case, it's merely oppression from the masses. You'd have society continually weed out those with opposing interests until there is no opposition left. That's great for social stability, but not ethical progress.

Society is compromise. It is like a relationship of sorts. Everyone has to give a little leeway to allow others to be there. Tolerance being the classic compromise. This is also why every society has established rules of behaviour so people can interact in an expected manner - this reinforces familiarity and therefore is comforting, permitting further interaction.

What you were describing earlier sounds less like compromise and more like oppression; what leeway do the masses give to the outcasts here? Where is the tolerance of those outcast views? "Sacrifice yourself or your ideals so that society can continue just as it has" doesn't sound like much of a compromise.

Transgressions are discouraged and this is reinforced throughout all levels of society to garner proper behaviour that is acceptable to all. To be blunt: Society is the master and the individual is the dog, as in a pet. If the dog adopts acceptable (or at least forgivable) behaviour it is a welcome member. If the dog does something wrong it is punished - at minimum to discourage similar behaviour in future. If the dog's behaviour is unmanageable and disruptive then the freedom of the dog is restricted (can't come inside because it isn't house-trained) (akin to prison or preventative punishment) or the dog is given away (akin to exile), or if behaviour is particularly bad the dog will be put down (execution) and considered a bad pet.

Even if this describes how it is, it is not how it should be. Honestly, you expect me to accept a view where human beings are reduced to the stature of dogs? How could a dog ever redeem itself? What kind of life and future would that give us? And again, this sounds nothing like compromise or tolerance.

Being part of society is a choice, but people grow up with a dependancy on it that is hard to shake - human interaction is part of being human, and long-term interaction requires compromise from both parties.

It doesn't sounds like you'd make it a choice...but in any case: social interactions are not the only form of human interaction, nor the most important, I'd say. There are also interpersonal interactions (like the sort between two good friends or a couple, for example). These are not the sort of transaction-like interactions that make up society, and certainly not like the master-pet scenario you described. In fact, their existence stands in open defiance of the social collective and its "desires" in that way; just as lone individuals can.

 

[In Search of Username]

Nothing.

As long as they show true remorse, it's forgivable.

 

[TWRule]

That was precisely my point. What is considered laudable today could be considered perverse tomorrow. Why are actions to be accepted as right just by virtue of majority rule?

Mainly because the majority or ruling body defines what is right, but if the ruling body and majority differ in their opinions then protests or revolts will erupt (unless there is sufficient oppression, and even then...).

I hope you realize that this is a circular argument ("Why should majority rule decide?" "Because it does.") and therefore doesn't serve your argument at all on its own.

If everyone is united, the perversity cannot be negatively impacting any member, either directly or indirectly, so it really just falls down to opinion...I don't condone cannibalism, but from a pragmatic view it can be justified.

Your first statement is also fallacious. Even if it was primarily at an unconscious level at first, it's completely possible for people to suffer from their own absurd/perverse actions (see existential guilt, anguish, etc.). Just about anything can be justified by pragmatism; that should be considered a failing of pragmatism as a guide to right, not an indication that anything and everything should be considered right.

Now think about when you enter a new subset of society, say school or a club, you will try to "fit in"...This is all because you want what society (or a subset) can give and you are willing to bend a bit to get it.

I'm not quite sure where you meant to go with this. We can play along with a society we don't agree with to a limited to extent if we want to? Sure. However, joining a club or going through the motions in a society doesn't necessarily have any effect on my more deeply held ideals, nor does it mean that I won't speak up against it when I feel the time is right, nor does failure to conform make me irredeemable in any meaningful sense.

That's the strange thing about it though: unless you were raised in a different society and emigrated, you are born with no views or beliefs - yours will be fairly close to the societal norm, and closer to the views and beliefs of those who raised you. And for those that don't fit in, the natural human reaction is to avoid interaction that is unpleasant, so they tend to withdraw and be ignored. If their beliefs are strange but harmless, they will just be viewed as weird or deluded, it is only when beliefs conflict that this withdrawl tends to happen.

Well, I'm a living exception to that entire theory, so those exceptions need to be taken into account.

To change fully, almost every child in a generation must be raised with awareness (or lack thereof) of the issue and pass it on to their children, etc.

I disagree, as it's quite possible for one to depart radically for the beliefs they were raised under - but for the masses in total, sure, it takes time; so what does that mean for the radical individual? "Too bad, you were born into the wrong period?" I'm sure I see your point there.

I used the dog reference because people evolved alongside dogs and it is unclear who tamed who along the way as both sides changed to accommodate the other.

I think it's pretty well clear who tamed who - and that is irrelevant anyway because you just laid it out as a master-pet relationship.

To demonstrate a compromise that is also comprised of tolerance, think of two people who don't know each other meet and try to live together in the same house; there will be expectations and demands from both sides and a resolution will need to be reached that satisfies both of them for friendly interaction to continue. This can be expanded upon until we build up a community.

This I almost agree with, but with the qualification that it's not always a straight compromise; in a genuine relationship, either one side will convert the other to their way of thinking through dialogue, or their dialogue will spawn a new way of seeing that they share. That is not the same as the diplomatic way, where no one really gives up their views, we just each make concessions for the other (the former would be what I call an interpersonal relationship, and the later a social relation).

Society at its basest level is just a group of animals trying to co-exist with each other - interdependancy being the driving force.

Sorry, but I can't accept that. I refuse to model human beings as animals; it does not respect human dignity and doesn't give us much hope for being able to positively transform (and thus redeem) ourselves. In so far as this might be said to be the case with modern society, it should not be.

It all comes down to interdependance.

Agreed, but it does not have to be that kind of interdependence.

Human interaction by definition is social...all participating parties benefit otherwise there would be resistance to do it in the first place.

Human interaction is only "by definition" social if we choose to conceive of it as limited in that fashion. I would distinguish between at least 3 different spheres of human interaction: the social, the interhuman, and the interpersonal. The social would be like you described through the media - just basic communication based on adherence to social roles that doesn't even require someone to be a complete human being to participate in. The interhuman is a more general category of any linguistic interaction between human beings, collectively or otherwise. Finally, the interpersonal is a type of interaction that consists of two fully fledged individual persons, not based on their social roles or any other superficialities but upon genuine addressing of the other person as a complete person - these generally penetrate into more profound territory than just negotiating amiable terms of living together. It's in the sphere of the interpersonal that a real conflict between worldviews could be resolved without either side pressuring or coercing the other into submission to their view. It fuels personal transformation and thus redemption.