Justice / Reflection on Action
It’s rather brutal to hold someone responsible for something you ask them to do. Well, when you ask someone to do something considered “nice” by your definition, are you doing it because you truly care for them, or that’s just who you think they should be, or who you want them to be? If it’s not the latter, why does it upset you when they don’t follow your advice? Why do we cringe when someone does something opposite to our ideals and want them to pay the price for it?
As an example, quite a number of people use religion to justify imposing their beliefs on other people. If they really want the best for others, they will refrain from using rash words, mocking tones and crude gestures. Isn’t the most basic thing most religions speak of is to be kind to others, no matter the circumstances? Since when are we better than “others”? Why all the heated talk about ‘vanquishing one’s opponents’ instead of focusing on ‘doing justice to address the human atrocities’?
These two lines follow two very different psychological views and as we decide who we want to be, whichever line we choose is reflected in our actions, either individual or collateral. Some issues require our passion and concern however, we ought not to romanticise such issues. It will take the human element out of them. Rise up and defend our honour, but in so doing we must restrain ourselves from laying down our own laws and punishments.
There are always two sides to one story, neither one is bigger than the other. That’s why we ought to respect our opponents. That is why we should never mock someone for their beliefs. That is why criminals deserve trials, even after they have committed very heinous crimes, such as drug offences.
Death penalty, which is the current punishment for these crimes, is an odious tool to 'send a message' to others in order to punish someone's story or character. Suicide bombing is an extreme example of the failure to reconcile the fact that someone else's life matters as much as one's life. Both of these examples are the same kind of punishment, in the sense that they both seek to instigate as much harm as possible to other lives. However, why do we abhor suicide bombing but we positively claim death penalty as a form of justice? Why should we ban one thing and allow the other?
Often, when we talk about death penalty, we wonder about whether someone is deserving of the punishment. The crux of our argument--whether we are for or against it--centers on this. Our judgment depends on our view of morality in general. However, we must check whether we actually think someone deserves to be punished because it will help them to be better, or simply because it conflicts with our belief. These two perceptions follow two very different psychological narratives. We must ask ourselves, what is our moral sense in taking a life away?
Does it frustrate you when you see a murderer alive because you genuinely care about the fate of their victim, or is it because you detest the fact that the murderer had opposed the system, something that you hold dear like your values, in which case you can't possibly argue to genuinely care about the victim. Isn't this the same kind of hate that suicide bombers have for wanting to see their enemies dead, because those people had violated their values? Isn't it a negative emotion that drives this motivation?
So then, I ask again: Why does it upset you that they don't follow your view? And, another question, does the value of life import a greater chance and significance than the finality of death? Even if you are a religious person, will you want someone to have a better life or a better death?
I suppose what we want for others pales in comparison with what that individual deserves. Everyone must be allowed to be given a chance to better their lives and not having it snuffed out on the demand of the society.
Death penalty, which is the current punishment for these crimes, is an odious tool to 'send a message' to others in order to punish someone's story or character. Suicide bombing is an extreme example of the failure to reconcile the fact that someone else's life matters as much as one's life. Both of these examples are the same kind of punishment, in the sense that they both seek to instigate as much harm as possible to other lives. However, why do we abhor suicide bombing but we positively claim death penalty as a form of justice? Why should we ban one thing and allow the other?
Often, when we talk about death penalty, we wonder about whether someone is deserving of the punishment. The crux of our argument--whether we are for or against it--centers on this. Our judgment depends on our view of morality in general. However, we must check whether we actually think someone deserves to be punished because it will help them to be better, or simply because it conflicts with our belief. These two perceptions follow two very different psychological narratives. We must ask ourselves, what is our moral sense in taking a life away?
Does it frustrate you when you see a murderer alive because you genuinely care about the fate of their victim, or is it because you detest the fact that the murderer had opposed the system, something that you hold dear like your values, in which case you can't possibly argue to genuinely care about the victim. Isn't this the same kind of hate that suicide bombers have for wanting to see their enemies dead, because those people had violated their values? Isn't it a negative emotion that drives this motivation?
So then, I ask again: Why does it upset you that they don't follow your view? And, another question, does the value of life import a greater chance and significance than the finality of death? Even if you are a religious person, will you want someone to have a better life or a better death?
I suppose what we want for others pales in comparison with what that individual deserves. Everyone must be allowed to be given a chance to better their lives and not having it snuffed out on the demand of the society.
Comments
Post a Comment