A dark question I have pondered is the simple concept of stupidity versus evil.
And the dark truth has revealed itself: Accidental stupidity is more wicked than deliberate malice.
Because a person who makes an informed choice can at least be held truly accountable. Only a grinning fool covered in the blood of the innocent can shrug and feel no guilt or remorse. This fool knows not what he does, thus we suffer.
While a person who has an objective, either good or evil, can at least personally understand that they made the choice themselves, and can be punished or rewarded for it accordingly, man to man. At least when we accuse them, they cannot deny it or blame someone else. They will take responsibility. They knew what they did.
In other words, I would more respect a man who slaughtered and says "Yes I did!" than a man who slaughtered and says "Was just following orders!"
One man has a mind and will. The other ....is nothing but either a feral beast, or some sort of vessel for an entity that DOES have a mind and will. And the act of being merely a vessel for evil is indeed much worse; for a true being chooses their destiny and their place in reality.
And those who did not choose, yet still took action, are mere monsters wearing human flesh, with no real mind of their own. Thus we suffer.
Memetic viruses walk this Earth unopposed. Words with meaning and purpose. The true world is not words. There is no word; there is no law. But humans sometimes hear these words and obey mere ideas, moreso than true reality.
Thus the reason Monckton's law can hold true: Words hold no truth. Words never had anything to do with truth. The connection between mere words and truth does not exist. Only the truth is true. Only reality is real. Ideas are not. Words are pure fiction by necessity and the true fact that words can be composed in any order to create ideas that are more or less the truth, but not the actual truth, is the reasoning why we cannot trust words alone. A description of an object is not the true object. And the thoughts or words of a person are not necessarily the actions of that person.
Other humans are not nearly as much our enemy as memetic viruses are, which although crafted by humans, surely must have some mind or will of their own. Thus we suffer. Thus we suffer. Thus we suffer.
Unfortunately, those who seem to be part of the evil cabal are narcissists, sociopaths and psychopaths.... and these do not take ownership of the evil they do.
They will deny it, even in the face of video evidence.
Sooo, we, the little people fighting this memetic war do not have the luxury of an "informed person who knew what they were doing and can be held accountable"
We have
Ah, but that's where my dark truth leads to.
That it is indeed more wicked to be ignorant than it is to be informed.
And in turn, the punishment for ignorantly casting evil into the world might very well be much more severe, for how DARE a human, an animal with an intelligent mind, for while birds have wings, goats have horns, and wolves have teeth, it is humans who have great INTELLECT, and so to fail to use their mind is perhaps the absolute most wicked crime a human can commit.
And when their failing hurts others on a mass scale, then who would call it wrong to condemn them?
I was recently disparaged by @coloneljethro for taking the position that sanctioning the evil and stupid for the harm they do should proceed regardless of whether they're evil or stupid. My point was that the reason for sanction is to prevent innocents - or valiant opposition - from being harmed. Trying to make allowances for stupidity only perpetuates harm. If someone is proved to be non compus mentus when prosecuted, then it becomes appropriate to provide them guardianship that will protect them and others from their incapacity.
Nonetheless, society has a duty to protect itself from the harm both evil and stupid people do.
Perhaps I could have explained myself better.
My point is that punishment/sanction simply doesn't work. Its utility as a deterrent is marginal at best and it does little to nothing to actually alleviate the harms done. In that light your insistence upon it seems akin to the old 'the beatings will continue until morale improves.'
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying nothing should be done, but rather that we might be better served by approaching things differently. It seems a bit surreal to protect society from harm by means that require harm to be done before they can be implemented (punishment/sanction follows harm, no?). If the harm is going to occur either way, would it not make more sense to focus on minimizing and/or repairing harm that will inevitably occur?
I have to respectfully disagree with your argument. I'd like to preface my rebuttal with first stating I very much appreciate your consideration of the matter, as you have clearly given it thought. Folks that give this matter thought enable rational consideration of the issue, and you are absolutely correct in your determination that it matters very much to society how government is implemented to prevent harm to people. A lot of what government does is improperly done, and in my estimation dramatically increases the harm people endure.
However, the specifics of sanctions aren't yet part of our considerations here, but merely whether or not mechanisms to prevent harm are undertaken regardless of why harm is being done, or by whom. It is a sad fact of existence in this world that violence is effective in dissuading people from continuing actions that draw violent response. Violence dissuades evil and stupid people alike, as well as good and innocent people.
Government is force. When government intervenes in our lives, it is always bringing the threat of violence. Whether people are deliberately hurting others, or hurting others inadvertantly, they need to be stopped, which is why we all form governments to defend us. There are possibly better ways to do this than government. I certainly think so. But this is clearly something necessary.
Once the harm is stopped, then who and why was committing it can be differentiated, and that is where I reckon we can consider how to handle folks that just aren't mentally capable of constraining their actions themselves, and need to have some kind of guardianship.
But if they're doing the rest of us harm, like poisoning our water or food, they first need to be stopped, and even if it takes violence to do so.
If you can suggest something else, I'm all ears.
Thanks!