Let's go into a hypothetical future

  • Thread starter Thread starter Spock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Spock said:
Let’s analyze this scenario. The person in question could have bought the car in good faith, with the intent to pay for it. Then he may have fallen on hard times, and unable to carry out his obligation. To attempt to keep the car is not an inherently violent action - though it would be illegal - while the repossession might turn violent.

From the top of my head I don’t see a good solution, so I will think about it. Though the financial loss of the lender, while undesirable - cannot be compared to the prevention of murders, tortures and rapes.
Click to expand...
The original post specifically listed robbery as something prevented. Keeping the car, after loosing the ability to make payments, is robbery. Thus, it would not be able to happen under the premise outlined above because the person would return the car if they couldn’t make the payments so as to avoid robbery.
I am simply astonished that you guys prefer the existence of all the horrors compared to the minor loss of freedom. What on Earth made you so bloodthirsty and irrational? Where is your compassion for the would-be victims? Why side with the criminals? Would your attitude be the same if the would-be victim happened to be your loved one? Would you stand to the side and allow your daughter to be raped, tortured and killed - out of misguided respect for the “freedom” of the criminal? Where is the freedom of the victim? Or are you just a bunch of hypocrites, who can “endure” someone else’s suffering - and call it “beautiful”? Are you guys sick?
Click to expand...
As you are posting this in response to my post I feel the need to say that I didn’t answer the original question except by suggesting a series of sci-fi / fantasy novels which I thought the OP might find interesting if they are asking this question. I am playing the role of innocent by-stander and simply corrected a fallacious assumption within a post. Therefore these questions cannot possibly pertain to me.
 
JoeJPurnell said:
Philosophically speaking, no. The ends do not justify the means. It would be an assault on the mind to prevent an assault on the body. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Click to expand...
Kind of reminds me of A Clockwork Orange – the novel version not the movie version they have different endings.
 
Whitacre_Girl said:
Firefly reference FTW!!!👍

I personally think this is a terrible idea. Asolute power corrupts absolutely. We need to, as a society, address the issues that drives people to commit these crimes. Something like this would treat the symptoms of a deeper illness, rather than cure the disease. This is why we, as followers of Christ, need to work harder to introduce the only cure: The love of God.

Secondly, we are talking about freaking MIND CONTROL here people. And, who decides what constitutes aggressive behaviour? Say our society continues in its pro-death ways. What happens when people, angry about abortion, protest outside a clinic? Would these pro-choice governors consider this aggression and shut them down? What about when spouses are fighting, and its a touchy issue that needs to be fought out. Are they shut down and never allowed to discuss it? We want to talk about a “perfect system” as the OP describes, but if there is one thing we have learned through history, there is NO SUCH THING as a perfect system. This is why communism fails. Communism is the ideal system, and would work to be perfect, were there perfect leaders for it.
Click to expand...
pro-choice – you used the correct term the second time.
 
Whitacre_Girl said:
Communism is the ideal system, and would work to be perfect, were there perfect leaders for it.
Click to expand...
Did nobody read " The Gulag Archipelago" ? Never mind the results of communism, its basic premises are immoral.
Otherwise, I liked what you wrote.
 
kesa82 said:
Did nobody read " The Gulag Archipelago" ? Never mind the results of communism, its basic premises are immoral.
Otherwise, I liked what you wrote.
Click to expand...
Could you summarize the work for those of us who have not read it?

What is the basic premise of communism that is immoral?
 
Drawmack said:
Could you summarize the work for those of us who have not read it?

What is the basic premise of communism that is immoral?
Click to expand...
Well it took a Nobel laureate two thick volumes to spell it out.

It is a misperception that communism is just an idea or a program. It puts the state , or , "the people " in the place of God.

It ignores the fact that there are in fact narrow limits to human reason.

At the heart of Bolshevik justice lies , not the word of God, or ancient custom or tradition, but the " good of the people " but this is in fact so malleable a concept as to know no limit , subject to no restraint.
 
kesa82 said:
Well it took a Nobel laureate two thick volumes to spell it out.

It is a misperception that communism is just an idea or a program. It puts the state , or , "the people " in the place of God.

It ignores the fact that there are in fact narrow limits to human reason.

At the heart of Bolshevik justice lies , not the word of God, or ancient custom or tradition, but the " good of the people " but this is in fact so malleable a concept as to know no limit , subject to no restraint.
Click to expand...
I have read many arguments, some written by Marx himself, that the Bolsheviks were not communists, but actually totalitarians who mislabeled their governmental structure to make it more palatable.

I do not think that the state as God is actually a communist ideal, I think it is a Russian communist ideal. Walk onto a commune (which is communist) and ask them who God is and you’ll see what I mean.

I do believe that a true communist ideal is impossible to implement on any scale of more than about 100 people, because it forgets to take into account that people are greedy. But I don’t really think that the concepts underlying communism are evil. I think that when communism is implemented on a large scale it becomes evil because of human greed for money and power.
 
Drawmack said:
As you are posting this in response to my post I feel the need to say that I didn’t answer the original question except by suggesting a series of sci-fi / fantasy novels which I thought the OP might find interesting if they are asking this question. I am playing the role of innocent by-stander and simply corrected a fallacious assumption within a post. Therefore these questions cannot possibly pertain to me.
Click to expand...
Indeed they did not. It was my fault to append them to the reply. They should have been presented in a separate post of their own. My apologies.
 
kesa82 said:
Well it took a Nobel laureate two thick volumes to spell it out.

It is a misperception that communism is just an idea or a program. It puts the state , or , "the people " in the place of God.

It ignores the fact that there are in fact narrow limits to human reason.

At the heart of Bolshevik justice lies , not the word of God, or ancient custom or tradition, but the " good of the people " but this is in fact so malleable a concept as to know no limit , subject to no restraint.
Click to expand...
I voted NO to the mind control. It would essentially take away our ability to act freely as moral creatures. And of course what sort of aggression is evil is not always clear, even in the cases stated in the OP.

To say that would imply that we should just let people out of prisons is not logical.(Which isn’t to say prison is always the best solution in cases of crime.) But in any case, a person in prison is suffering the consequences of an act they have actually committed, and have been tried and sentenced. (If we assume the mind control is perfect, I think we can assume the justice system is perfect too.)

I don’t think being a victim of crime is the most horrible thing ever, that it could justify fundamentally trying to alter human nature.

Psychiatric drugs, generally, aren’t quite the same. Unless the person is a danger, no one takes them unless they want to. And it is actually debated whether we should make anyone take them, even those who are locked up because they are dangerous.
 
Spock said:
In this case you have to show that taking away the freedom of the would-be criminals is somehow inferior to the alternative.
Click to expand...
I have to show that taking away the mental freedom of everyone is somehow wrong. Isn’t that a no-brainer (pun intended)?
 
JoeJPurnell said:
I have to show that taking away the mental freedom of everyone is somehow wrong. Isn’t that a no-brainer (pun intended)?
Click to expand...
No it is not. It does not take away ALL the freedom, only some parts of it, which are not desirable in the first place… We do not have total freedom in either direction. We cannot alleviate a lot of suffering, even if we want to. We cannot inflict suffering beyond a certain limit, even if some sociopaths would want to.

Our freedom to act is already seriously limited. To take away the freedom of criminals to inflict pain and suffering does not carry any unwanted consequences, on the contrary, it enhances the freedom of the would-be victims to live their life without unwanted interference. Why is that so difficult to accept? Why do you guys wish to “protect” the freedom of the criminals at the expense of the freedom of the would-be victims? I keep asking this question, and there is no answer. Of course there can be no answer.
 
 
Free will is better than no will…even allowing for the tremendous hurt it can sometimes cause. Mind control is no way to go.
 
Free will is a part of Gods plan. He wants people who love and obey Him because they want to. He could have as easily created people who obey him because that was the way He made them and He did not do that.Free will includes the possibility that a person might commit some violent crime. Taking way a little free will is the first step on a long and slippery slope. I choose not to go there.I admit, I am afraid of that step.

This is a Catholic site. The answers, whether reasoned or not, are entirely consistent with the morality that most (fallible, human) Catholics strive for. If this was a political site, I MIGHT have a more difficult time defending my decision but it is not.

Personally, I am opposed to all restrictions on free choice, even many that almost everyone else thinks are essential to a functioning society. From a pure morality viewpoint, I believe that the only law needed should be “Love the Lord God with your whole mind and your whole soul and your whole heart; and love your neighbor as yourself.” Unfortunately, we cannot deal with a pure morality world. That however is the goal I strive for, and thus my answer.

Patrick
 
Hi Peter,

I admire your loyalty to your beliefs. I also completely agree with your position of “Love the Lord God with your whole mind and your whole soul and your whole heart; and love your neighbor as yourself.” I’m somewhat different in my understanding of that, however, as I have found out that there is a crucial part of the dynamics involved in the practice of it that is not spoken by the church. It is easy for me now to see why, though it took me years of adjustment to “get it.” In fact, the Church as I knew it did not have the chops to deal with the actual reason why that is the ultimate law. It is ver, very, competent in exoteric explanations of it, but fails when it comes to the esoteric reason it is founded on. Many of my friends have discovered a simlar thing. Sadly, it seems that a vibrantly alive poriton of what used to be the Church has passed into ignorance, and some have to go outside it to re-establish stability. That is not criticism, only reportage.
 
Suffering is necessary. One’s virtue and strength cannot be formed and refined when life is perfect and nothing is going wrong. Every saint I can think of made many sacrifices, some voluntary and others not, and thus were brought closer to God through it. St. Paul asked God several times to remove those things that were tempting him, but God would not so that Paul would increase in virtue and strength.

We have two choices concerning suffering: either we take pleasure here and suffer longer in purgatory, or suffer more here and less in purgatory, where the suffering is worse than anything we could experience here. Even in suffering, God is glorified and our relationship with him grows stronger.

So, to you, it may seem that suffering is wrong, and it is such a much greater good just to remove a little free will, but you are not seeing the full picture. What is a little suffering here, if it will make our way to heaven more certain, and our stay in purgatory a little shorter?

So no, I would not support limiting anyone’s free will, because God created us with the ability to choose. And even when someone commits a sin against another, God can use it for the salvation of souls and for his greater glory.
 
I can only see this as justifiable ONLY on repeated violent criminals and even then it seems kind of iffy. Oh and only if there would be no side effects.
 
seeker_of_God said:
Suffering is necessary. One’s virtue and strength cannot be formed and refined when life is perfect and nothing is going wrong. Every saint I can think of made many sacrifices, some voluntary and others not, and thus were brought closer to God through it. St. Paul asked God several times to remove those things that were tempting him, but God would not so that Paul would increase in virtue and strength.

We have two choices concerning suffering: either we take pleasure here and suffer longer in purgatory, or suffer more here and less in purgatory, where the suffering is worse than anything we could experience here. Even in suffering, God is glorified and our relationship with him grows stronger.

So, to you, it may seem that suffering is wrong, and it is such a much greater good just to remove a little free will, but you are not seeing the full picture. What is a little suffering here, if it will make our way to heaven more certain, and our stay in purgatory a little shorter?

So no, I would not support limiting anyone’s free will, because God created us with the ability to choose. And even when someone commits a sin against another, God can use it for the salvation of souls and for his greater glory.
Click to expand...
Now if only you could give some actual evidence, not just faith that there is this purgatory… which is not even mentioned anywhere in the Bible. And that there is a “full” picture. But I give you kudos for at least not saying that suffering is “beautiful”. Hard to believe but I have seen that nonsense repeatedly before.

Of course God could have created all of us with the necessary virtue, so that no advancement would be necessary. 😉
 
Spock said:
Now if only you could give some actual evidence, not just faith that there is this purgatory… which is not even mentioned anywhere in the Bible. And that there is a “full” picture. But I give you kudos for at least not saying that suffering is “beautiful”. Hard to believe but I have seen that nonsense repeatedly before.
Click to expand...
I don’t need any evidence, when it comes to the Church’s teachings. I believe that Jesus gave his Church the authority to teach, and so I submit to that authority.

No one likes suffering, but it’s the stark reality of this world. We can only look forward to what’s ahead.
Spock said:
Of course God could have created all of us with the necessary virtue, so that no advancement would be necessary. 😉
Click to expand...
It was like that in the beginning, until original sin entered the picture.
 
“I don’t need any evidence,”~~ Congratulations, SeekerofGod! You are already therefore in the mind control scheme proposed by the OP! What a wonderful thing it must be for folks like you to not have to think. All you have to do is swallow a faith, Catholic, Pocomaniac, Christadelphian, or whatever, and you are safe! How cool is that! All you have to wish for now is that the rest of the world swallows the blue pill as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top