Good people. . Good people don' t need laws to tell them to act responsibly and bad people will find a way around the laww. -p. m. No. Actually this is wrong. If you remove fear of punishment or any kind of prosecution some of everyday normal Joes will go dark side. Real life experiment was
x

Comments(199):

[ 199 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#47 - chrislafff (09/21/2013) [-]
Related
Related
User avatar #115 to #47 - OOOnelsonOOO (09/21/2013) [-]
You don't want this to be the day when you find out why I have so many.
User avatar #154 - pokemonstheshiz (09/21/2013) [-]
>implying the world is so simple it can be divided into good and bad people
User avatar #159 to #154 - admiralen (09/21/2013) [-]
it can be divided into good and bad acts
User avatar #167 to #159 - pokemonstheshiz (09/21/2013) [-]
not necessarily. Morality is full of grey areas.
Say there's a very poor man, and he steals someone's purse to buy food for his children. Now, stealing is generally considered wrong, and saving children is generally considered good. This action as a whole is neither explicitly good nor bad.
User avatar #170 to #167 - admiralen (09/21/2013) [-]
the act is then separated into pieces, and then you put them against each other and it cancels out into a punishable act, like he stole cause he was starving, its not ok to steal even then, but he had no other choice so lessen the punishment etc
User avatar #182 to #170 - pokemonstheshiz (09/21/2013) [-]
But it's all one action, it can't be separated like that.
User avatar #183 to #182 - admiralen (09/21/2013) [-]
ofcourse it can, there are reasons for and against, and some of the reasons are good, some are bad
User avatar #184 to #183 - pokemonstheshiz (09/21/2013) [-]
so what would you classify the action as? Good, bad, neutral?
User avatar #185 to #184 - admiralen (09/21/2013) [-]
you have to consider all factors, what he did, why he did it, but in the end thats just some - and +
User avatar #186 to #185 - pokemonstheshiz (09/21/2013) [-]
You're not answering the question. Even if it's just + and - , that can come out to zero. Numbers can be imaginary or irrational, and by this logic morality can be the same. Which is what I'm trying to say, it's not just good and bad, it's more complicated than that
User avatar #187 to #186 - admiralen (09/21/2013) [-]
if it comes out as 0 do a -1 since they commited an unlawful act
User avatar #188 to #187 - pokemonstheshiz (09/21/2013) [-]
do they always get a -1 when they commit an unlawful act?
User avatar #189 to #188 - admiralen (09/21/2013) [-]
if its neutral its not good enough reason
User avatar #190 to #189 - pokemonstheshiz (09/21/2013) [-]
Well I think there's a neutral area, and you are negating it's existence.
I don't think we're going to get anywhere here. Good day to you sir
User avatar #192 to #190 - admiralen (09/21/2013) [-]
then what would be neutral to you? if its neutral it has to have absolutely no good or bad effects, or balance them out so perfectly that its imposible
User avatar #194 to #192 - pokemonstheshiz (09/21/2013) [-]
the exact situation I was describing. The unlawful act is a negative, and saving starving children is a positive. Thus, a neutral act.
User avatar #195 to #194 - admiralen (09/21/2013) [-]
depends on what you do with it, stealing bread isnt as negative as saving starving children is positive, thus a positive act, a neutral act would be pointless since it accomplishes nothing, its like killing 3 enemy soldiers at the cost of 3 of your own
User avatar #196 to #195 - pokemonstheshiz (09/21/2013) [-]
well there's not really a scale upon which we can determine how "good or bad" an act is, so there's not a universally balance act.
A neutral act wouldn't be pointless though. A better example, I think, than yours is killing enemy soldiers to save your own men. That would be true neutral
User avatar #197 to #196 - admiralen (09/21/2013) [-]
no, killing enemy soldiers to kill your own is a positive act since its in order to save lives, defeating your enemies isnt a negative thing or act, going overboard with it is a negative and evil act, but if you do it to save your own its a positive one, neutral is just something that changes nothing
User avatar #198 to #197 - pokemonstheshiz (09/21/2013) [-]
I don't view defeating enemies as a positive act though. Killing is always negative, despite the reason. You can try to justify it, but in the end a life was taken.
User avatar #201 to #198 - admiralen (09/21/2013) [-]
you disagree, but in the end you have no choice, if someone would try and take your life or the ones you loves life they forfeit their own in my eyes, in the end you simply defend yourself or your loves ones
User avatar #199 to #198 - admiralen (09/21/2013) [-]
depends, if you do it to protect your own its not a negative act, a life they gave up when they commited the negative act of attacking you and your own
User avatar #200 to #199 - pokemonstheshiz (09/21/2013) [-]
I disagree
#67 - MrPadre (09/21/2013) [-]
Good men don't need rules. Today is not the day to find out why I have so many
#69 to #67 - princessren (09/21/2013) [-]
just what I was thinking
just what I was thinking
#77 to #69 - zorach ONLINE (09/21/2013) [-]
Me too
User avatar #51 - srskate (09/21/2013) [-]
>driving

your argument is invalid
User avatar #140 - Bad Man (09/21/2013) [-]
Or the bad people will make the laws...
#60 - serotonin (09/21/2013) [-]
No. Actually this is wrong. If you remove fear of punishment or any kind of prosecution some of everyday normal Joes will go dark side.   
   
Real life experiment was police strike in Canada. You would think that super nice Canadians would behave but 			****		 hited the fan. Army had to take to the streets to restore order. Google it
No. Actually this is wrong. If you remove fear of punishment or any kind of prosecution some of everyday normal Joes will go dark side.

Real life experiment was police strike in Canada. You would think that super nice Canadians would behave but **** hited the fan. Army had to take to the streets to restore order. Google it
User avatar #73 to #60 - thebigoddone (09/21/2013) [-]
They had so much repressed anger...
#90 to #60 - anon (09/21/2013) [-]
First sorry for posting as anon too lazy to log in.

Secondly We've been discussing this in my sociology class and there are actually cultures where they don't punish you for a crime. Instead they make you face up to the people you hurt and basically they're all nice to you. In one tribe if you commit a crime the entire tribe stands in a line and says something nice about you. Punitive justice systems are actually not all that effective. Since you pay the fine and move on you never really consider what you've done. While I believe there should be a punishment like a fine or jail time at the same time the person or poeple you've hurt should be able to confront you and tell you how you've hurt them.


TLDR Some places use guilt by being nice to you once you commit a crime. If you continue to commit it though you're kicked out. Its about a sense of community.
#95 to #90 - djhuehue (09/21/2013) [-]
I'm sorry but micropolitical policies do not apply to large scale states. Your tribe case would never work in say Paris or New York. Your example could work within a family setting but not within a large society of which >99.9% are strangers. Bummer you didn't log in I would have liked to continue this discussion.
#102 to #60 - SovietXMudkip (09/21/2013) [-]
If you're talking about the 1969 Montreal riots...I mean, it was MONTREAL, not exactly known for being that peaceful. Also, at that time there was a separatist moment called the FLQ causing civil unrest. So yeah.
User avatar #122 to #60 - wallbuilder (09/21/2013) [-]
Maybe they weren't actually good people in the first place then.
User avatar #152 to #60 - ReeferTrees (09/21/2013) [-]
Just because you remove laws does not mean you remove means of punishment.

It seems that most people forget, everyone in law enforcement or military are PEOPLE.

So that means PEOPLE punish PEOPLE. We just have titles and other people telling us who is justified right now.
#162 to #60 - jikario (09/21/2013) [-]
A few problems with this observation.

One. The Over-generalization and stereotypical assumption that all Canadians are nice people. Everyones different, and every country has their group of assholes.

Two. The strike you're talking about was in Montreal, and only 108 people were arrested, not even a fraction of the 1.6 million population, the majority of them taxi workers with a cause to be angry. The rest of Montreal didn't give a **** about the police striking and went on about their business.

(The only image I could find suitable to express both my confusion and internet butthurt from someone blatantly attacking the ideology of one of the wisest men to ever walk the earth. In a very poor manner.)
#169 to #162 - serotonin (09/21/2013) [-]
1. I know that. I was using stereotype to get my point acros. (But on the other hand stereotypes often mirror some real life characteristic). Canada serves as a good example because it is nice, developed, civilised country with good reputation. We are not talking about some war devestated African country.   
2. That is valid point. Maybe such low numbers have something to do with....police being on strike at the time, so no one was there to do arresting? Just a tought   
   
Attacking ideas such as this is good mental work out. I could have expanded on subject but...1) This is funnyjunk. 2) I didnt have time 3) look at number 1 again
1. I know that. I was using stereotype to get my point acros. (But on the other hand stereotypes often mirror some real life characteristic). Canada serves as a good example because it is nice, developed, civilised country with good reputation. We are not talking about some war devestated African country.
2. That is valid point. Maybe such low numbers have something to do with....police being on strike at the time, so no one was there to do arresting? Just a tought

Attacking ideas such as this is good mental work out. I could have expanded on subject but...1) This is funnyjunk. 2) I didnt have time 3) look at number 1 again
#163 to #60 - pandahuggrstabbr (09/21/2013) [-]
Kansas did an experiment where they didn't patrol at all, crime rates did not change. Texas has harsh death penalty laws, it still has some of the highest murder rates. States with three strikes laws tend to have the worst crime rates. The deterrence theory hasn't been fully accepted, people that would commit a crime would do it whether there is a punishment or not.
User avatar #165 to #163 - serotonin (09/21/2013) [-]
I agree that deterence theory has some major flaws. Problems with many theories is that they try to explain everything and everyone and to make generalisations. Like I said SOME OF people are held in line by fear of punishment or by fear of social stigma.
#48 - builditbetter (09/21/2013) [-]
A more accurate description would be "Good people don't need laws to tell them to act responsibly, and bad people won't concern themselves with the laws anyway."
#118 - scapegrace (09/21/2013) [-]
I'm fairly certain Plato never said anything like this. He held that laws were important to a well run state (at least if the Republic is any guide to his thoughts).

If something like this does get said in one of his dialogues I'm guessing this graphic has it out of context.

So, source or it didn't happen.
User avatar #131 to #118 - Whaaaaaaaaa (09/21/2013) [-]
Well put. As the old Abe Lincoln quote goes," You can never truly trust what you find on the internet."
User avatar #54 - TheFixer (09/21/2013) [-]
laws only apply to law abiding citizens. which is why gun laws and drug laws dont work.
#64 to #54 - anon (09/21/2013) [-]
Are you legit retarded?

Do you have /any/ idea how difficult it is to get a gun in countries where guns are more tightly controlled than America? Do you think every teenage ******* knows a smuggler who can get guns from him?

You people don't seem to understand that there's a difference between professional criminals and idiot kids.
User avatar #205 to #64 - TheFixer (09/22/2013) [-]
its easy become an outlaw and join the cartel
#96 to #54 - djhuehue (09/21/2013) [-]
Anon is right, although kind of douchey and rude. If drug consumption/distribution was legal you would see it all around you. Also in other western countries where firearm possession is illegal (or at least very heavily regulated) death rate (by firearm) is much much lower (look it up > Japan, France, Germany, vs. U.S).
User avatar #151 to #96 - commontroll (09/21/2013) [-]
Well, the only issue with America is the sheer size of our borders. We have a lot of ways and land for people to smuggle in weapons unnoticed, say compared to Denmark, which only has so much land to enter on. And people can still smuggle in weapons (or steal them from the military) or other such things.

Besides, the problem with comparing America and other nations that successfully have gun control is that they are two very different cultures. Even in America, the ones that want gun control are of a totally different environment and culture than the ones who don't want gun control.

I'm anti-gun control. I have my reasons, but for one, they're fun as hell, and two, they're a tool. My dad raised me to never treat a gun as a toy, and taught me that it was a tool and a weapon. No laughing matter. Told to never point one at somebody even if it was unloaded, and to always make sure the chamber was empty before doing anything else.

I still follow his lessons by heart. He also taught me the same things about knives. Only those are even more of a tool than a weapon in my eyes.
User avatar #16 - phoenixdowner (09/21/2013) [-]
But what if there are no laws to establish morality? Without a commonly-accepted moral ground, anything you do is technically good and moral, because no one is able to tell you otherwise.
#58 to #16 - twentyten (09/21/2013) [-]
Well people use that reasoning for religion and obviously that's not true. And besides, morality is relative. Nothing is really good or bad, but only relative to what people think is good and bad. And we don't need laws to establish moral ground.
#85 to #16 - dandyhandy **User deleted account** (09/21/2013) [-]
Congratulations for putting the principle of the Hobbe's-Locke debate you learned about in 9th grade to  not very good  use.
Congratulations for putting the principle of the Hobbe's-Locke debate you learned about in 9th grade to not very good use.
#87 to #16 - kez (09/21/2013) [-]
Humans instinctually have similar morals.

You dont need to establish them
User avatar #116 to #16 - xtwinblade (09/21/2013) [-]
if you cant seperate good to bad, you're not lacking laws... You're lacking empathy.
#119 to #16 - bellbottomshark (09/21/2013) [-]
Plato thought it was very important to establish a common morality through education. He also talks about how inappropriate the Greek myths are where heroes and gods act like total tools because he thought it would encourage people to act like tools.
User avatar #129 to #16 - douthit (09/21/2013) [-]
Morality should determine laws, not the other way around.
#19 to #16 - nightstar (09/21/2013) [-]
Society determines morality.

If the masses are okay with something, it's all good.
User avatar #44 to #19 - Ruspanic (09/21/2013) [-]
Which is why we should have established and codified protections for individual rights, rather than relying on often subjective standards of right and wrong.
User avatar #142 to #44 - commontroll (09/21/2013) [-]
Nowadays we rely on a fairly straight forward rule of thumb.

Everybody is allowed to pursue happiness and have freedoms, unless their pursuit of happiness and their view of freedoms takes from others. Murder takes away somebody's right to live, suicide ruins the family and friends, stealing is taking something that somebody worked hard for and has memories about it.

At least, that's how it works theoretically.
User avatar #145 to #142 - Ruspanic (09/21/2013) [-]
I'd disagree with you on suicide, but that's basically what I'm saying. The idea of individual rights is that they cannot be violated by others, and conversely that they apply until they come into conflict with others' rights.

Of course, societal standards of morality and normalcy guide our behavior as well, but if those fail we need codified legal protections to prevent people from harming or oppressing each other. Criminal law should then be made accordingly.
User avatar #148 to #145 - commontroll (09/21/2013) [-]
I'm just saying that suicide effects the family of the victim too much and too harshly. It's not a victimless thing.
User avatar #158 to #145 - admiralen (09/21/2013) [-]
suicide is selfish and just hurts yourself and the ones around you, it should be discouraged
User avatar #173 to #158 - Ruspanic (09/21/2013) [-]
It should be discouraged and I think it's nearly always a bad decision, but ultimately people have the right to end their own lives.
User avatar #174 to #173 - admiralen (09/21/2013) [-]
its always a bad decision, they have the right, but it doesnt change that its selfish, stupid and inconsiderate
#203 to #174 - nightstar (09/21/2013) [-]
Always?
85 years old. Happy with life thus lived.
Cancer of the everything. Family agrees with the wishes of suicide, so as to not live out the last couple of years of life in a hospital bed attached to a couple dozen machines in complete misery just waiting for death.



But
Turns out allowing someone to kill themselves is illegal...
User avatar #176 to #174 - Ruspanic (09/21/2013) [-]
Well, not everyone has a family or friends that care about them.

I said nearly always because there are exceptions, such as killing yourself to avoid a more painful imminent death, and other such extreme cases.
User avatar #177 to #176 - admiralen (09/21/2013) [-]
just saiyan, if youre not religious you dont know whats coming after death, and if you are religious most religions send suiciders to hell
User avatar #178 to #177 - Ruspanic (09/21/2013) [-]
If you're not religious, there's no reason to believe anything is coming after death. Brain damage during life affects cognitive abilities and personality, which indicates that all aspects of the self are tied to the brain and cannot persist after the brain dies.

If you do believe suicide is automatically punishable by eternal suffering in hell, that consideration would probably deter you from killing yourself.
User avatar #179 to #178 - admiralen (09/21/2013) [-]
im just saying it doesnt solve or help in any case really, either you stop existing or you go to hell for it
User avatar #180 to #179 - Ruspanic (09/21/2013) [-]
A lot of people kill themselves because life is intolerable to them. Maybe they have severe depression, or maybe their life is just utter **** . Occasionally it's a response to some deeply traumatizing event. To "stop existing" is pretty much the point - it ends the suffering.

Of course, I don't believe the conditions that lead people to suicide are necessarily permanent, which is why I think it's usually a bad decision.
User avatar #181 to #180 - admiralen (09/21/2013) [-]
people have no idea how it would be like to not exist, they are just taking the easy way out, it can always get better, you can always get away from the **** situation
User avatar #191 to #181 - Ruspanic (09/21/2013) [-]
Yeah, that's generally my opinion too. Things can probably get better, especially if you kill yourself at a young age. But then, some people kill themselves for different reasons entirely. Like, I read an article about a man who killed himself at 60-something years old. Not because he was unhappy with his life - on the contrary, he was very happy and well-liked - but because he figured he'd lived long enough and wanted to die on his own terms. Which I think is perfectly respectable, if unusual.

As for not existing - it wouldn't like anything. You wouldn't exist. It'd be just like before you were conceived. It's not a sensation or anything.
User avatar #193 to #191 - admiralen (09/21/2013) [-]
waste really, both the old man and not existing, you dont really know if thats the case, anything could happen, you could just lie there in your corpse not being able to move hear see or feel.
besides if youre gonna die on your own terms you might as well kill a dictator or something while youre at it
User avatar #20 to #19 - phoenixdowner (09/21/2013) [-]
A frightening thought, if you think about it. I mean, what If everyone's ok with genocide?

A more interesting thought to me is, suppose you have two equal-sized societal groups with disparate ideas? Which group would be right?
#22 to #20 - nightstar (09/21/2013) [-]
The one that gets to write the historical narrative...


User avatar #23 to #22 - phoenixdowner (09/21/2013) [-]
It's interesting to think that the one with the strongest muscle is the one with the right philosophy.
User avatar #28 to #23 - fireprincess (09/21/2013) [-]
As seen throughout history.
#93 to #20 - anon (09/21/2013) [-]
The one that persuades more idiots to join their cause.
User avatar #86 to #20 - skaffanl (09/21/2013) [-]
I once got told a story I will never forget. I forgot the name of the woman, but the essence of the story was that a Jewish woman who had survived a concentration camp was to testify before the Nazi who signed papers which would conclude where a Jew was to go, to which concentration camp, something like that. I also know the court case was in Israel. Well, everybody was expecting the woman to say that the man should die, that he was very evil and all that. But what she said was:

"This man just did what was normal. Just like everybody around him he stood up for work and signed his papers because it was his job. Everybody had a job in Nazi Germany and there were not many who questioned it. How can we blame and punish a man for doing what was normal?"

Especially in a war everybody who's fighting believes they are fighting for the good and not for the evil.
#56 to #20 - uruguayan (09/21/2013) [-]
The one that wins the war.
User avatar #38 to #20 - stefanieg (09/21/2013) [-]
thats why we vote..
#21 to #16 - RageGuyyourmom (09/21/2013) [-]
commonly-accepted moral ground is only applicable within a community ancient civilizations used to find it completely moral to sacrifice their own children but its generally frowned upon today.
#91 to #21 - dubmaster (09/21/2013) [-]
"generally"
User avatar #153 to #91 - ReeferTrees (09/21/2013) [-]
It's generally frowned upon to go around torturing people for days before killing them.

That doesn't stop psychopaths does it? You can read the news can you not?
User avatar #61 to #21 - lolzordz (09/21/2013) [-]
they didnt find it moral, they just never thought it was immoral because of the way they felt about death at those times
#70 - thewaronbeingcool (09/21/2013) [-]
Nah... Fear of the law is the only thing that's stopping me from stealing everything that isn't bolted down.
Nah... Fear of the law is the only thing that's stopping me from stealing everything that isn't bolted down.
User avatar #146 to #70 - tomahawkit **User deleted account** (09/21/2013) [-]
maybe, but you seems to be the kind of guy to torrent anything that's not encoded to the ground.
#171 - bladebites (09/21/2013) [-]
Actually, according to actual studies that are at this point practically common knowledge,   
"good" people will do bad things if they don't get punished for it.   
Hell, I don't consider myself a "bad person" generally speaking and I'd steal the 			****		 out of the Publix candy isle given the chance.
Actually, according to actual studies that are at this point practically common knowledge,
"good" people will do bad things if they don't get punished for it.
Hell, I don't consider myself a "bad person" generally speaking and I'd steal the **** out of the Publix candy isle given the chance.
User avatar #202 to #171 - lyiat ONLINE (09/21/2013) [-]
I'm pretty sure that the quote isn't even from Pla Read up on The Ring of Gyges, a story he wrote exploring just this very theme.
User avatar #105 - niggastolemyname (09/21/2013) [-]
I would've considered this as possible if it wasn't for the fact that plato is damn near always wrong
User avatar #114 to #105 - scapegrace (09/21/2013) [-]
Pretty sure Plato never said this (or a lot of the other things he's quoted as saying on the web)...
#79 - arreatface (09/21/2013) [-]
Finding a way around the law isnt that hard, you just have to by-pass him
#72 - mymissiondaytwo (09/21/2013) [-]
It's interesting to note that there are barely any "good" or "bad" people out there.
Most people are neutral. We all have capabilities to "do good" or otherwise "do bad" and we've had our fair share of both.
#63 - wildfireryo (09/21/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#62 - I Am Monkey (09/21/2013) [-]
I'm pretty sure I'd speed more often if there were no cops...
I'm pretty sure I'd speed more often if there were no cops...
#59 - anon (09/21/2013) [-]
Laws are there for the stupid.
User avatar #1 - zachariaseverlivin (09/20/2013) [-]
Yeah because if I grew a cannabis plant I am a bad person...
User avatar #2 to #1 - schnizel ONLINE (09/20/2013) [-]
And your adress and name is?
User avatar #3 to #2 - zachariaseverlivin (09/20/2013) [-]
Elmur, hic, thud and I live in a cabin
User avatar #4 to #3 - schnizel ONLINE (09/20/2013) [-]
Your location goyim, ugh, I mean fellow pot smoker, 420 blaze it.
User avatar #5 to #4 - zachariaseverlivin (09/20/2013) [-]
Just follow your nose
User avatar #6 to #5 - schnizel ONLINE (09/20/2013) [-]
Oh I got it. I'm calling the jewish police, oy vey you children.
User avatar #8 to #6 - zachariaseverlivin (09/20/2013) [-]
RAmen
#103 to #8 - SovietXMudkip (09/21/2013) [-]
I think both of you are high.
#164 - krokberg (09/21/2013) [-]
... and bad people will find a way to be the one who knocks
[ 199 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)