Is it possible to stop a person from doing a thing? It is definitely desireable to stop a person from doing a thing sometimes, a damaging or dangerous thing for example. Laws clearly do not completely stop a person from a thing because evidence shows that laws, even when known, get broken. Can a persuasive argument stop a person from doing a thing? Why did people makes slaves do things with whips and threats instead of with persuasive arguments? Rather, to stay on topic, why did the stop them from escaping with threats and systems rather than persuasive arguemtns, but an established and understood societal system of being brought back or being a slave elsehwere explains that to be a persuasive argument on its own. So then a system can prevent liberation of a slave, but slaves did attempt to escape and sometimes succeeded so then a system and/or argument cannot necessarily completely prevent or make a person do a thing.
If someone fully understands that they should not do a thing in a way that they agree with, for example if slaves enjoyed being slaves, would they then conclusively not do the thing of escape or revolt. Is finding agreement on an issue or system construction a way to stop people doing a thing. So maybe a new understanding can entirely change behaviour.
An experiment can be performed by making an arbitrary rule and asking someone to comply then giving them an incentive not to comply and if they take the incentive it can be inferred that they do not agree with the rule. Rewriting the rule until they no longer take any possible or imaginable incentive would be to discover a way to find obeyance of the rule.
Is not harming oneself always a sufficient incentive, not so as slaves escape at great risk to themselves. Is explaining the result of breaking the rule in advance sufficient incentive? Explaining the punishment for breaking the rule is not sufficient incentive as people are aware of crimes resuslting in imprisonment and still commit crimes.
Is understanding the reason for the rule sufficient incentive? This hits more to the mark. Conveying an effect of breaking a rule that a person agrees with by explanation and/or demonstration certainly could enable a person to defy incentive of breaking the rule.
Do we all agree on the laws of society? If everyone has the same fundamental human nature then it seems we do not all agree on the rules of society or the system that we are in because every rule gets broken so our ability to understand rules are similar from person to person and even basic rules get broken. Fairness and justice and right and wrong might be inherent understandings to human nature so then rules need to be in agreement with inherent properties of a person as such.
In a society where people agree with all the rules and see no injstice in the rules do they get obeyed? I believe they do. A good example is lawfulness rates in highly advanced countries with little inequality or corruption.
No comments:
Post a Comment