Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, Belindi,

Thank you for your reply!

With that context, I understand much better what you mean.

Political philosophy mostly only interests me to the extent that it acts as an analogue for my spiritual philosophy of spiritual freedom. For instance, self-government can act as an analogue of self-discipline, and self-employment can act as an analogue of both of self-government and self-discipline.

Primarily, the authorities and enslavements I seek to firmly, stubbornly, and defiantly reject are much more than merely petty political ones. I suspect generally only those people who are way too attached to the material world of the flesh could care very much about the topical human politics of a sliver of time on a tiny planet in an endless sky.

I don't agree with Scott's stance on personal purity. Nobody is Jesus Christ and we all have to get our hands dirty if we want to make the world a better place.

Generally speaking, I consider the concept of "making the world a better place" to be a dangerous superstitious notion. A similar thing people often say, when "getting their hands dirty" (e.g. committing aggressive violence such as murder, rape, or slavery), is that the are doing it "for the greater good". Sometimes they will even say to the actual victims of violence, "this is for your own good". Indeed, that latter case is the epitome of violent nanny statism.

One needn't be Jesus to completely and utterly reject all of that as dangerous violence-conducive superstition. One needn't be Jesus to refuse to commit non-consensual non-defensive violence (e.g. murder, rape, slavery, etc.). One needn't be Jesus to choose to not be a murderer or rapist.

In contrast, one who believes the ends can 'justify' the means, with the ultimate end being something superstitious like "making the world a better place" or such, then such a person can rationalize any means no matter how brutal or violent.

So, no; In that sense, I think one absolutely does not have to "get their hands dirty". You don't have to commit severe non-consensual non-defensive violence (e.g. murder, rape, slavery, etc).

You choose to, or at least you can.

One chooses to.

Or, one chooses not to.

For more on those subjects, please do see my other topics below related to the superstition of 'justice'/'morality' and of the dangers of violent nanny statism.


Topics on Violent Nanny Statism and "Getting One's Hand Dirty" for the alleged 'Greater Good':

- Orwellian Agent-Smithism | How Control Freaks, God Complexes, And Violent Nanny Statism Attack Freedom and Diversity

- Dangerous Moral Busybodies | "A tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive."

- All the do-gooders are troublemakers: A plague of virtuous people | A perfectly pestiferous mass of a million saints

- Friends, I ask you to oppose all non-consensual non-defensive violence, even when it's legal or done by your own government.

Related subjects: "the ends justify the means"; "two wrongs make a right"; "the lesser of two evils"; and violent utilitarianism.



Topics on the Superstition of Justice/Morality/Shouldness/Oughtness:

- A World Blinded by Sadistic Anger | How the dangerous superstition of justice leads to aggressive violence and misery

- An elaboration on how judgemental moralizing and the superstition of 'moral law' infringes on free-spirited inner peace

- What the word "evil" means to me, and why I believe evil (as I use the term) does not exist.

- There is no "Is-Ought Problem" because there is no 'ought'.

- I lovingly and deeply pity those who think unchangeable reality "ought" to be different than it unchangeably is.


Of course, my book, In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All, makes the stronger, more convincing, more efficient-to-read, and more agreeable case for all of the above, in part since I worked on the book for over 5 years and employed multiple paid professionals to help craft, edit, and refine it. So the book gives the reader much more value per-word-read than any of my posts here on these forums could ever come close to doing, alone or in combination.



Thank you,
Scott

[Belindi]

Hi, Belindi,

Thank you for your reply!

With that context, I understand much better what you mean.

Political philosophy mostly only interests me to the extent that it acts as an analogue for my spiritual philosophy of spiritual freedom. For instance, self-government can act as an analogue of self-discipline, and self-employment can act as an analogue of both of self-government and self-discipline.

Primarily, the authorities and enslavements I seek to firmly, stubbornly, and defiantly reject are much more than merely petty political ones. I suspect generally only those people who are way too attached to the material world of the flesh could care very much about the topical human politics of a sliver of time on a tiny planet in an endless sky.

I don't agree with Scott's stance on personal purity. Nobody is Jesus Christ and we all have to get our hands dirty if we want to make the world a better place.

Generally speaking, I consider the concept of "making the world a better place" to be a dangerous superstitious notion. A similar thing people often say, when "getting their hands dirty" (e.g. committing aggressive violence such as murder, rape, or slavery), is that the are doing it "for the greater good". Sometimes they will even say to the actual victims of violence, "this is for your own good". Indeed, that latter case is the epitome of violent nanny statism.

One needn't be Jesus to completely and utterly reject all of that as dangerous violence-conducive superstition. One needn't be Jesus to refuse to commit non-consensual non-defensive violence (e.g. murder, rape, slavery, etc.). One needn't be Jesus to choose to not be a murderer or rapist.

In contrast, one who believes the ends can 'justify' the means, with the ultimate end being something superstitious like "making the world a better place" or such, then such a person can rationalize any means no matter how brutal or violent.

So, no; In that sense, I think one absolutely does not have to "get their hands dirty". You don't have to commit severe non-consensual non-defensive violence (e.g. murder, rape, slavery, etc).

You choose to, or at least you can.

One chooses to.

Or, one chooses not to.

For more on those subjects, please do see my other topics below related to the superstition of 'justice'/'morality' and of the dangers of violent nanny statism.


Topics on Violent Nanny Statism and "Getting One's Hand Dirty" for the alleged 'Greater Good':

- Orwellian Agent-Smithism | How Control Freaks, God Complexes, And Violent Nanny Statism Attack Freedom and Diversity

- Dangerous Moral Busybodies | "A tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive."

- All the do-gooders are troublemakers: A plague of virtuous people | A perfectly pestiferous mass of a million saints

- Friends, I ask you to oppose all non-consensual non-defensive violence, even when it's legal or done by your own government.

Related subjects: "the ends justify the means"; "two wrongs make a right"; "the lesser of two evils"; and violent utilitarianism.



Topics on the Superstition of Justice/Morality/Shouldness/Oughtness:

- A World Blinded by Sadistic Anger | How the dangerous superstition of justice leads to aggressive violence and misery

- An elaboration on how judgemental moralizing and the superstition of 'moral law' infringes on free-spirited inner peace

- What the word "evil" means to me, and why I believe evil (as I use the term) does not exist.

- There is no "Is-Ought Problem" because there is no 'ought'.

- I lovingly and deeply pity those who think unchangeable reality "ought" to be different than it unchangeably is.


Of course, my book, In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All, makes the stronger, more convincing, more efficient-to-read, and more agreeable case for all of the above, in part since I worked on the book for over 5 years and employed multiple paid professionals to help craft, edit, and refine it. So the book gives the reader much more value per-word-read than any of my posts here on these forums could ever come close to doing, alone or in combination.



Thank you,
Scott

You are right and I'd like to rephrase.
Nobody can 100% know what is best to do, 'good' intentions are not enough, and we can't even define 'good'.
However there are ideas of good that overarch tribal and personal differences; the United Nations Organisation, the earlier League of Nations, and international law are examples. There are many examples of overarching personal heroism some of whom you have mentioned. But sometimes the establishment is better than the establishment that preceded it and better than the one that followed it, for instance the first French Revolution established a better state of France but subsequently the Revolutionaries deteriorated into a rule of terror. Again, Muhammad the Holy Prophet improved Arabia by introducing Islam then Islam became more political than spiritual and the lesser jihad overtook the greater jihad. Xianity has undergone similar ups and downs. Ideas have a history, and we must participate willynilly in the historical process.
You wrote:

I lovingly and deeply pity those who think unchangeable reality "ought" to be different than it unchangeably is.

The story of humanity is indeed sad but that is not a justification for opting out of participation.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Political philosophy mostly only interests me to the extent that it acts as an analogue for my spiritual philosophy of spiritual freedom. For instance, self-government can act as an analogue of self-discipline, and self-employment can act as an analogue of both of self-government and self-discipline.

Primarily, the authorities and enslavements I seek to firmly, stubbornly, and defiantly reject are much more than merely petty political ones. I suspect generally only those people who are way too attached to the material world of the flesh could care very much about the topical human politics of a sliver of time on a tiny planet in an endless sky.

I don't agree with Scott's stance on personal purity. Nobody is Jesus Christ and we all have to get our hands dirty if we want to make the world a better place.

Generally speaking, I consider the concept of "making the world a better place" to be a dangerous superstitious notion. A similar thing people often say, when "getting their hands dirty" (e.g. committing aggressive violence such as murder, rape, or slavery), is that the are doing it "for the greater good". Sometimes they will even say to the actual victims of violence, "this is for your own good". Indeed, that latter case is the epitome of violent nanny statism.

One needn't be Jesus to completely and utterly reject all of that as dangerous violence-conducive superstition. One needn't be Jesus to refuse to commit non-consensual non-defensive violence (e.g. murder, rape, slavery, etc.). One needn't be Jesus to choose to not be a murderer or rapist.

In contrast, one who believes the ends can 'justify' the means, with the ultimate end being something superstitious like "making the world a better place" or such, then such a person can rationalize any means no matter how brutal or violent.

So, no; In that sense, I think one absolutely does not have to "get their hands dirty". You don't have to commit severe non-consensual non-defensive violence (e.g. murder, rape, slavery, etc).

You choose to, or at least you can.

One chooses to.

Or, one chooses not to.

You are right and I'd like to rephrase.
Nobody can 100% know what is best to do, 'good' intentions are not enough, and we can't even define 'good'.

However there are ideas of good that overarch tribal and personal differences;

I agree with your sentence above in the sense that I would agree, for example, that the violent oppressive Soviet Union had overarching ideas of "the greater good" or such that overached the more local diverse ones, or that Nazi Germany's conformity-enforcing ideas of a greater good overachered the weaker diverse ones. It's essentially the simple the idea of 'might makes right'. That gets also combined with diversity-eliminating and conformity-enforcing nature of bigger or growing empires and governments, meaning how close an aggressive violent government comes to being a world government (i.e. achieving world domination). The religion (and similar superstitions) of the imperial militant victors who takeover the world tends to become the religion of the world, or at least overarch the other diverse religions within their empire.

I don't believe "right" exists, but I do believe "might" exists.

The superstitious gods of the military victors become the gods of all within their empire. In that way, history is not all that is written by the victors. Rather, history, religion, and common superstition is all determined mostly by the victors. But I don't personally believe in any of their religions or superstitions.

You wrote:

I lovingly and deeply pity those who think unchangeable reality "ought" to be different than it unchangeably is.

The story of humanity is indeed sad but that is not a justification for opting out of participation.

I don't refuse to participate in humanity, and I don't refuse to participate in the story of humanity. Instead, what I am refusing is this: I refuse to engage in or support the use of non-consensual non-defensive violence (e.g. murder, rape, slavery, etc.).

Likewise, I will often choose to descriptively call things like I objectively see them. For example, if I see rapes happening, I'll say rapes are happening. If I see a government legally raping or legally murdering someone, I'll often point to it and say, "that's rape" or "that's murder". It's not a moral judgement, and it's not resentful judgementalism of any kind. It's simply a matter of fact.

I will not rape and murder people (or commit similar non-consensual non-defensive violence) for the greater good, or for any reason, both (1) because I don't believe the greater good exists, and (2) it wouldn't matter to me if it did.

If murdering and raping people is for the greater good, then I consider the greater good my enemy, and I will happily work for the greater bad.

I don't believe the greater good or greater bad actually exist, but I do believe crime exists, and in line with how I choose my heroes, I love committing crime.

I would have smoked marijuana and Cuban cigars a lot less than I did in my life if they had been legal. But I like committing crime. So I like doing them, in part, because they are illegal.

I'm not gay at all, but I'd love to go to Uganda and do gay stuff, just because I love committing crime that much.


Thank you,
Scott

[Belindi]

Political philosophy mostly only interests me to the extent that it acts as an analogue for my spiritual philosophy of spiritual freedom. For instance, self-government can act as an analogue of self-discipline, and self-employment can act as an analogue of both of self-government and self-discipline.

Primarily, the authorities and enslavements I seek to firmly, stubbornly, and defiantly reject are much more than merely petty political ones. I suspect generally only those people who are way too attached to the material world of the flesh could care very much about the topical human politics of a sliver of time on a tiny planet in an endless sky.

I don't agree with Scott's stance on personal purity. Nobody is Jesus Christ and we all have to get our hands dirty if we want to make the world a better place.

Generally speaking, I consider the concept of "making the world a better place" to be a dangerous superstitious notion. A similar thing people often say, when "getting their hands dirty" (e.g. committing aggressive violence such as murder, rape, or slavery), is that the are doing it "for the greater good". Sometimes they will even say to the actual victims of violence, "this is for your own good". Indeed, that latter case is the epitome of violent nanny statism.

One needn't be Jesus to completely and utterly reject all of that as dangerous violence-conducive superstition. One needn't be Jesus to refuse to commit non-consensual non-defensive violence (e.g. murder, rape, slavery, etc.). One needn't be Jesus to choose to not be a murderer or rapist.

In contrast, one who believes the ends can 'justify' the means, with the ultimate end being something superstitious like "making the world a better place" or such, then such a person can rationalize any means no matter how brutal or violent.

So, no; In that sense, I think one absolutely does not have to "get their hands dirty". You don't have to commit severe non-consensual non-defensive violence (e.g. murder, rape, slavery, etc).

You choose to, or at least you can.

One chooses to.

Or, one chooses not to.

You are right and I'd like to rephrase.
Nobody can 100% know what is best to do, 'good' intentions are not enough, and we can't even define 'good'.

However there are ideas of good that overarch tribal and personal differences;

I agree with your sentence above in the sense that I would agree, for example, that the violent oppressive Soviet Union had overarching ideas of "the greater good" or such that overached the more local diverse ones, or that Nazi Germany's conformity-enforcing ideas of a greater good overachered the weaker diverse ones. It's essentially the simple the idea of 'might makes right'. That gets also combined with diversity-eliminating and conformity-enforcing nature of bigger or growing empires and governments, meaning how close an aggressive violent government comes to being a world government (i.e. achieving world domination). The religion (and similar superstitions) of the imperial militant victors who takeover the world tends to become the religion of the world, or at least overarch the other diverse religions within their empire.

I don't believe "right" exists, but I do believe "might" exists.

The superstitious gods of the military victors become the gods of all within their empire. In that way, history is not all that is written by the victors. Rather, history, religion, and common superstition is all determined mostly by the victors. But I don't personally believe in any of their religions or superstitions.

You wrote:

I lovingly and deeply pity those who think unchangeable reality "ought" to be different than it unchangeably is.

The story of humanity is indeed sad but that is not a justification for opting out of participation.

I don't refuse to participate in humanity, and I don't refuse to participate in the story of humanity. Instead, what I am refusing is this: I refuse to engage in or support the use of non-consensual non-defensive violence (e.g. murder, rape, slavery, etc.).

Likewise, I will often choose to descriptively call things like I objectively see them. For example, if I see rapes happening, I'll say rapes are happening. If I see a government legally raping or legally murdering someone, I'll often point to it and say, "that's rape" or "that's murder". It's not a moral judgement, and it's not resentful judgementalism of any kind. It's simply a matter of fact.

I will not rape and murder people (or commit similar non-consensual non-defensive violence) for the greater good, or for any reason, both (1) because I don't believe the greater good exists, and (2) it wouldn't matter to me if it did.

If murdering and raping people is for the greater good, then I consider the greater good my enemy, and I will happily work for the greater bad.

I don't believe the greater good or greater bad actually exist, but I do believe crime exists, and in line with how I choose my heroes, I love committing crime.

I would have smoked marijuana and Cuban cigars a lot less than I did in my life if they had been legal. But I like committing crime. So I like doing them, in part, because they are illegal.

I'm not gay at all, but I'd love to go to Uganda and do gay stuff, just because I love committing crime that much.


Thank you,
Scott

I agree with you and sympathise with your defiance insofar as you are an individual.Your personal relationships with loved ones, friends, and acquaintances pertain to you as you are an individual. You may be acquainted or feel friends with someone you never met but have read their story as told by a third person, and that affects you as an individual. However what if you had to make a decision affecting thousands of people you have never met such as politicians have to do? Would you be a utilitarian then?

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

However what if you had to make a decision affecting thousands of people you have never met such as politicians have to do? Would you be a utilitarian then?

No, absolutely not, for the reasons already mentioned. If anything, I'd be even less likely, the reason for which is something people loosely hint at when they say 'power corrupts'.

Regarding aggressively violent people willing to commit murder or rape as the so-called 'justified' means to some allegedly preferable end (e.g. the so-called "greater good" or ]"justice", neither of which I believe exists), doing it on a larger scale only increases the violent devastation, as well as bring the idea of 'power corrupts' even more into play.

For the same reason I wouldn't commit murder, I wouldn't commit genocide.

I oppose all non-consensual non-defensive violent (e.g murder, rape, slavery, etc.), especially when it is done in a large systematic way and/or done on a large scale by a big non-local government.

If anything, I'd oppose a government or rich greedy politician living 1,000 miles away in Washington ordering a legal murder or rape of someone in my hometown than I would a single citizen paying a hitman to do it illegally. The former tends to be much more dangerous and deadly. I wouldn't do either, but if anything I'd hire a criminal hitman to do an isolated criminal murder before I'd work for a violent government to legally hire a law-abiding murderer to do legal murder, such as the legal murder of peaceful homosexuals in Uganda.

[Belindi]

Scott wrote:

For the same reason I wouldn't commit murder, I wouldn't commit genocide.

What if you were Boadicea and a Roman legion had raped your daughters, had you stripped naked and whipped, and stolen your farmland and sustenance against starvation, would you take up arms against the Romans with the intention of killing them all if that is what it takes to make them retreat?

[Pattern-chaser]

What if you were Boadicea and a Roman legion had raped your daughters, had you stripped naked and whipped, and stolen your farmland and sustenance against starvation, would you take up arms against the Romans with the intention of killing them all if that is what it takes to make them retreat?

Research seems to suggest that the majority of 'terrorist' attacks actually seek to defend or reclaim their land(s). So an empirical answer to your question might seem to be that humans will act violently in the face of attack, war, or occupation/invasion. Being a coward and a pacifist, I'm not sure how I might respond in such a situation...

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Scott wrote:

For the same reason I wouldn't commit murder, I wouldn't commit genocide.

What if you were [..]

No, I still would not commit murder or genocide.

Not as angry revenge, not for any reason.

As previously explained, I absolutely reject violent utilitarianism or any other superstition that would have one believe that the ends (e.g. the so-called "greater good") 'justify' any means, including non-defensive violence such as murder or rape. I don't believe in such 'justice', meaning I don't believe it even exists as meaningful concept; it's superstitious nonsense.

I don't care what the so-called ends are; I will not engage in murder or rape. I will not support murder or rape. I oppose all murder and rape.

Or, at least, in extreme circumstances, I hope that that I would not lose my brave self-discipline (a.k.a. spiritual freedom) and resort to such angry, hateful, or selfish behaviors, which (for the reasons explained in this post) I believe would best be described as cowardice. As I wrote in the OP of my topic, Man Is Not Fit to Govern Man:

The reality of humans isn't that they are bad at designing diets, but that they are bad at sticking to their own diets, at maintaining honest spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) in the heat of fleshy discomfort and in the face of those or that which would say, "eat the cake; break your diet and eat the cake". But sometimes it's not cake that a voice in your head that is not you says to eat; sometimes it is not a delicious drink of alcohol that a voice in your head that is not you says to drink; sometimes the voice is from an external Nazi, the politics aren't an analogue, and the cake is an innocent person you could violently murder, rape, or enslave. I chose to say no. I choose to disobey, to disobey both the Nazi with a gun to my head and the egoic voices in my own head pretending to be me.


[Read Full Post]

I am on a strict diet of no murder and no rape. And I have no intentions of coming off it for any reason at all ever.

Even more than that, I oppose murder and rape when they are committed by others, so much so that I am willing to use defensive force, including lethal force if needed, to stop a murderer or rapist from doing a murder or rape.

[Belindi]

Scott wrote:

For the same reason I wouldn't commit murder, I wouldn't commit genocide.

What if you were [..]

No, I still would not commit murder or genocide.

Not as angry revenge, not for any reason.

As previously explained, I absolutely reject violent utilitarianism or any other superstition that would have one believe that the ends (e.g. the so-called "greater good") 'justify' any means, including non-defensive violence such as murder or rape. I don't believe in such 'justice', meaning I don't believe it even exists as meaningful concept; it's superstitious nonsense.

I don't care what the so-called ends are; I will not engage in murder or rape. I will not support murder or rape. I oppose all murder and rape.

Or, at least, in extreme circumstances, I hope that that I would not lose my brave self-discipline (a.k.a. spiritual freedom) and resort to such angry, hateful, or selfish behaviors, which (for the reasons explained in this post) I believe would best be described as cowardice. As I wrote in the OP of my topic, Man Is Not Fit to Govern Man:

The reality of humans isn't that they are bad at designing diets, but that they are bad at sticking to their own diets, at maintaining honest spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) in the heat of fleshy discomfort and in the face of those or that which would say, "eat the cake; break your diet and eat the cake". But sometimes it's not cake that a voice in your head that is not you says to eat; sometimes it is not a delicious drink of alcohol that a voice in your head that is not you says to drink; sometimes the voice is from an external Nazi, the politics aren't an analogue, and the cake is an innocent person you could violently murder, rape, or enslave. I chose to say no. I choose to disobey, to disobey both the Nazi with a gun to my head and the egoic voices in my own head pretending to be me.


[Read Full Post]

I am on a strict diet of no murder and no rape. And I have no intentions of coming off it for any reason at all ever.

Even more than that, I oppose murder and rape when they are committed by others, so much so that I am willing to use defensive force, including lethal force if needed, to stop a murderer or rapist from doing a murder or rape.

The only way to stop the brutality of some people is to kill them before they kill you and yours.If RAF fliers had not fought the Battle of Britain the country would have been overrun with Nazis. WWII was a just war, a defensive war, against a violent aggressor. I believe Churchill made the right choice. However I understand your reasons for pacifism.

There were conscientious objectors i.e. pacifists during WWII and they were sent to be coal miners and that sort of thing.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I am on a strict diet of no murder and no rape. And I have no intentions of coming off it for any reason at all ever.

Even more than that, I oppose murder and rape when they are committed by others, so much so that I am willing to use defensive force, including lethal force if needed, to stop a murderer or rapist from doing a murder or rape.

The only way to stop the brutality of some people is to kill them before they kill you and yours.

I agree. I am not a pacifist. I consider myself to be a peace-lover and very peaceful, but I am not a pacifist. I only strictly oppose non-defensive violence; And, in fact, I am so opposed to non-defensive violence that I am often willing to use defensive force to stop it, including lethal defensive force if necessary.

In other words, I strongly and adamantly oppose all non-defensive violence (e.g. murder, rape, slavery, etc.), but I am willing to use defensive force, including lethal force, against those who commit non-defensive violence (e.g. murderers, rapists, enslavers, etc.). For example, generally, if I can, I will use defensive force to defensively kill a murderer who is attempting to murder me or my kids rather than stand by as a pacifist letting him murder me or my kids.

As I use the terms, it's not murder if it is defensive; and, if it's murder, then it's non-defensive by definition.

[Belindi]

I am on a strict diet of no murder and no rape. And I have no intentions of coming off it for any reason at all ever.

Even more than that, I oppose murder and rape when they are committed by others, so much so that I am willing to use defensive force, including lethal force if needed, to stop a murderer or rapist from doing a murder or rape.

The only way to stop the brutality of some people is to kill them before they kill you and yours.

I agree. I am not a pacifist. I consider myself to be a peace-lover and very peaceful, but I am not a pacifist. I only strictly oppose non-defensive violence; And, in fact, I am so opposed to non-defensive violence that I am often willing to use defensive force to stop it, including lethal defensive force if necessary.

In other words, I strongly and adamantly oppose all non-defensive violence (e.g. murder, rape, slavery, etc.), but I am willing to use defensive force, including lethal force, against those who commit non-defensive violence (e.g. murderers, rapists, enslavers, etc.). For example, generally, if I can, I will use defensive force to defensively kill a murderer who is attempting to murder me or my kids rather than stand by as a pacifist letting him murder me or my kids.

As I use the terms, it's not murder if it is defensive; and, if it's murder, then it's non-defensive by definition.

In that case, I agree with you.Thank you.

[d3r31nz1g3]

I think obviously in some form a resounding yes but I still think the question is meaningful even if most people would find the answer beyond obvious.

Currently American society is dependent on mass incarceration for the sake of our security. However, the majority of inmates are ethnic minorities, immigrants, the struggling working/poor, addicts, mentally ill, etc.

Basically, our society is INCARCERATING people because of our own social ineptitude. Gotta bunch of poor people, drug addicts, third world citizens that are threatening our society? Well, just LOCK EM UP!

Basically we're a privileged, first world society surrounded by billions of hungry third world citizens and our solution is to systematically incarcerate them or to simply keep them out of our borders. Prison is a lame fix for social ailment.

But even once we resolve the issue of prison being a classist system of incarcerating the poor for the sake of first world civilization... we're still going to require facilities that which incarcerate/intern people.

I think our "criminal justice" system of the future will be increasingly medical. I think less people will be incarcerated in the future. I think less people will commit crime in the future. I think class imbalance will be less in the future. I think the reasons people commit crime today will be less prevalent in the future.

So, tl;dr:

The prison system is a massive, terroristic system that primarily incarcerates the poor, ethnic minorities, foreigners, and the mentally ill. We live in a world of poverty and war and prison is basically to control all the underclass.

However the fundaments of incarceration are necessary regardless. But it will look a lot different going forward.

[LuckyR]

I think obviously in some form a resounding yes but I still think the question is meaningful even if most people would find the answer beyond obvious.

Currently American society is dependent on mass incarceration for the sake of our security. However, the majority of inmates are ethnic minorities, immigrants, the struggling working/poor, addicts, mentally ill, etc.

Basically, our society is INCARCERATING people because of our own social ineptitude. Gotta bunch of poor people, drug addicts, third world citizens that are threatening our society? Well, just LOCK EM UP!

Basically we're a privileged, first world society surrounded by billions of hungry third world citizens and our solution is to systematically incarcerate them or to simply keep them out of our borders. Prison is a lame fix for social ailment.

But even once we resolve the issue of prison being a classist system of incarcerating the poor for the sake of first world civilization... we're still going to require facilities that which incarcerate/intern people.

I think our "criminal justice" system of the future will be increasingly medical. I think less people will be incarcerated in the future. I think less people will commit crime in the future. I think class imbalance will be less in the future. I think the reasons people commit crime today will be less prevalent in the future.

So, tl;dr:

The prison system is a massive, terroristic system that primarily incarcerates the poor, ethnic minorities, foreigners, and the mentally ill. We live in a world of poverty and war and prison is basically to control all the underclass.

However the fundaments of incarceration are necessary regardless. But it will look a lot different going forward.

Best sentence in the post.

[Anil G]

I think the Society needs more Hospitals, Psychological Treatment Centre or Rehabilitation Centre for the treatment of Mentally Sick people who go into the path of Crime. I think, when there are criminals in prison they do not get treated well and there they meet other criminals and together they get more aggressive and it creates more and more crime. We need prison to the people who have done a crime which is purely against humanity like Murder, Rape, etc cases, but prisons for other criminals is not the solution to end the crime or just to punish them for their sins.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think the Society needs more Hospitals, Psychological Treatment Centre or Rehabilitation Centre for the treatment of Mentally Sick people who go into the path of Crime.

Police, and prison officers too, have maintained for years that many or most of the people they deal with would be better receiving some form of medical care or treatment. But imprisonment is much cheaper than care ... and much more fun for typical, vengeance-loving citizens, who like nothing better than to see someone (else!) 𝖕𝖚𝖓𝖎𝖘𝖍𝖊𝖉!