As I discussed in the previous installment, when egregious crimes are committed against the collective and in violation of the social contract, is it either moral or civilized to execute the offender with quick and extreme prejudice? Only if we are able to discern a just society. Pol Pot thought he had a just society and over a million people lost their lives. On the other hand, it is possible to find perhaps millions worldwide who would think the United States government is in the same league with the Khmer Rouge. Opinions do not matter. Empirical evidence and the scientific method are all we have to discern policy in even such an ambiguous area as how to run a civil society. The question then runs to whether or not a quick execution is in the long term survival interests of our society. If the evidence, as in the Boston Marathon bombing, is incontrovertible, then the expense and consternation of trial by jury and incarceration for some decades is an undue burden on society. We don't currently apply that standard because we are so afraid of the inexact quality of our senses and reason that we would rather let murderers go free than execute an innocent man. We have good reason to be cautious, and we have good reason to proceed. Understanding how we discern the difference between Knowledge and Certainty should be the first stone on which any societal structure is built. If we understand that, we can have a society in which the social contract is both enforceable and beneficial. We will always have scarce resources and the ability to apply those resources to bring about a civil society rather than using them to support the degradation of civil society. This is topic exceeding the short length of a blog. For a more detailed explanation: http://www.roguewolfinc.com/thebrassswancosmology.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment