Thé usual argument in favor of not giving this choice is to warn others against commiting the same crime.
Admittedly, It is quite difficult to argue against this. How can you be against protecting innocent people from great harm? But we now have to think about whether human rights are an objective premise or just a means to make society work.
In this case, this will lead to the side effect that people in positions of power working even harder to maintain their position through all means necessary such as corruption and nepotism. Because not being able to afford good lawyers or not having powerful connections increases the probability of “falling” - and in this case of harsh punishments - falling very hard. People would rather launch a nuke and bring about the apocalypse, and live in a bunker the rest of their lives rather than face say, disproportionate punishment. Of course, this is an extreme example, but you get the idea.
People usually want to join a mob for a just cause first, then think later about the realistic consequences as they come one step at a time. It’s like a drug, except that with drugs you have no illusions about having the moral high ground whatsoever.
1 Like
Not without considering proportionality. How many death sentences are necessary to prevent one murder for example? And not just in the current system, but when (all) other effective means to prevent murders are used.
Revenge is also important to a lot of people. No matter whether it helps anyone or not.
1 Like
Agreed but I say this to clarify the question because “crime” by definition is merely whatever the government says is illegal. So the question is not whether people should receive a cruel punishment for (e.g.) growing cannabis, but rather for committing acts which would seem fundamentally incompatible with participation in a just society.
(Now if someone wished to debate you here they might argue that precisely because “human rights are an objective premise” it is society’s duty to protect those rights by any means necessary against people who would violate them. But, personally, I am unimpressed by the claims of governments to represent the will of society, and by their ability to wield power justly.)
On a similar note regarding this …
… the usual “joke” is that it’s illegal to destroy government property.
3 Likes
If human rights where an “objective premise” we’d all have the same rights, everywhere.
This doesn’t happen, so they probably are quite subjective.
I’ve seen quite a few mobs in the literal sense (with actual people being present) or the metaphorical sense (people jumping on a bandwagon and supporting a position) and I find the idea that this position needs to somehow be “a just cause”, very novel indeed. 
Most of them never “think later”, at all, especially today where the news cycle is so fast and doesn’t allow for long term thinking of any topic, for that kind of people. Most of them realise what they have done, if and only if, their unfortunate choices come back to bite them. Otherwise they keep sprouting the same nonsense or just move on to the “next current thing” in total lack of awareness.
The classic example of such a case is this:
“After her husband’s diagnosis, Nancy Reagan became an advocate for Alzheimer’s research.”
AFTER…
Before that? 
Did they give a damn? No. 
It was other people dying. But once her own husband was ill, suddenly stem cell research was as cool as can be.
I’ve never taken any, so I have no opinion on this analogy.
3 Likes
Assume that you want to go into an area, and it’s explicitly written that shoes are not allowed inside. However, you take a peek and see that about half the people inside are still wearing shoes and there’s nobody controlling it.
What do you do?
- Take off your shoes and go inside
- Keep your shoes on and go inside
- Decide not to go inside instead
0
voters
2 Likes
Surprisingly hard to answer question.
If a rule that does not affect you is being broken, then you can easily decide to still follow the rule or not. For example if the rule was “no shorts (for men) or pants (for women) allowed in the monastery” (actual rule in a monastery in my area. They provide a dressing area and clothes for the guests to wear the appropriate clothing) then you can easily decide to follow the rules and respect the place, even if others do not. What other people chose, does not affect you, so you can do the right thing easily.
However, people wearing shoes on a “no shoes area” means that if you follow the rule now you are the one wearing socks, while walking on dirty floors.
I think the solution lies to this:
If whoever is responsible does not care enough to enforce the rules and they do not respect their own establishment, then probably neither should you. However, this also means that maybe you shouldn’t go in a place like that anyway, eh? Who knows which other rules are being trampled upon?
Therefore, I’d choose B or C, depending whether I really needed to enter or not.
If I had to go in, then B. If it is optional, then probably C. Voting C, then.
4 Likes
D. Walk right in , i"m already barefoot.
5 Likes
Probably take off my shoes provided that there is a place to store them (which is usually the case in places where you’re supposed to take them off) and that I see no risk of them being stolen.
Actually yes, I don’t want my shoes being stolen, that would probably be the main deciding factor.
4 Likes
anonymous
Do you use AI to review your game?
- yes
- no
0
voters
(finished game)
If you don’t review, therefore you don’t use it to review, vote “no”.
If you review and you don’t use it, vote “no”.
If you review and you use it, vote “yes”.
1 Like
Consider all times you heard car alarms, excluding your own, sounding in the previous decade → H.
Consider how many occasions during the same period you investigated a sounding car alarm further to determine whether a car was actually being stolen or broken into → S
How does S compare to H?
- 5% or fewer
- More than 5%
0
voters
Is it okay to pat a stranger’s kid on the head without consent?
Assume no bad intentions, just a light pat on the head.
- Yes
- No
0
voters
It’s very linked to the cultures of the place you are so I can’t answer this poll
1 Like
I would find weird to touch any body part of any stranger without consent. Patting a child on the head or an adult on the back is fine if both know each other well (at least outside Thailand).
1 Like
Just base it on your personal opinion, not whether it’s socially accepted
What I do is linked to the social normalisation. Touching the head of a child is not only unwelcome in Thailand but in some other countries like India too(I do remember it).
In South America, touching each other is much more well perceived as, say in Europe.
1 Like
Yeah but how would you feel and react if you were in that situation? You mean your feeling and reaction would change depending on where you are?
IMHO it doesn’t matter where this happens, as we cannot know the cultural background of child and parents, we live in a multicultural world with a lot of migration.
I never touched the head of children in India or in Thailand. I won’t do it either here in France if any doubt that I could offend someone.
1 Like