Who am I? What am I? Where am I? Where am I headed to? I really don't know. RNFI. Really No F**king Idea. A cynic, an idealist, a person with ideas, but NATO. Am I? I really don't know. RNFI. Really No F**king Idea.

Monday, December 19, 2005

Human(e)

it seems that Voctir and XH are still engaged in a debate about the death penalty.

Voctir argument stems from the belief that the death penalty is inhumane. but he does not go on to explain why it is inhumane. in some societies, a life for a life is not considered inhumane. it is considered just.

a society's morals are formed by what the majority (or influential bits) of the society think is moral which depends on the society's morals.

Voctir also argues that everyone has the right to life, citing the UN Declaration of Human Rights. in that declaration, everyone has the right to freedom of expression.

so. if i wanted to express my views about a movie in the cinema, while the show is going on, where everyone would rather i shut up so that they can enjoy the movie, i have the right to. right?

or if i am in an exam and think that the paper is shit easy (though the rest of the class might not think so), and i would like to publicly express my views when the exam is going on, i have the right to. right?

every right comes with responsibilities that curtails the expression of that right. and so i say that when one takes another person's life, one forfeits his life to the society to do what it will to his life according to that society's prevailing norms and laws.

the society can then choose to be as harsh as it wants, or as lenient and magnanimous as it wants. however, every choice has its consequences.

i believe and have argued that the death penalty has become a symbol of the iron tight rule of law in Singapore (whether or not the rule of law in Singapore is indeed iron tight and/or just is another matter. what matters is the perception that it is) which has helped the nation attract FDI. so changing that particular law would have to be done carefully and with much wayang to demonstrate that much thought has indeed been given to it.

that is where the activists sometimes fall short as well. they are only particularly interested about that one cause that they are championing, so much so that they fail to see the effects of their efforts, some of which are unintended. while that is alright for the activists, it would be irresponsible for the government to not expect and manage these unintended effects.

4 Comments:

Blogger jasmi said...

but if everyone was a rational thinker who saw all sides of the problem, from all perspectives, one might find that there is no one direction that is correct to head in. who's to decide which opinion to go with? so we end up as moderates.. and honestly, if thinking doesnt get you anywhere, why think at all? isnt that what's happening now? true we should all try to consider all points of view but there must be some people who will push their agenda more so that things will change. but of course, we pick our battles and inch our way. revolutions are SO passe.

11:51 PM

 
Blogger rench00 said...

you raised a good point. so it's a fine delicate balance between thinking and doing. either in too much is a problem.

and it is about choosing what seems most correct or least wrong and then living with that choice.

revolutions are necessary only when great change is needed in a very short span of time. a pre-requisite of which seems to be great suffering. let's hope that revolutions are truly passe because such great suffering will never again arise.

12:23 AM

 
Blogger jasmi said...

unless you're an advocate of no pain, no gain. and in this day and age, are we allowed to go any slower than fastest?

11:23 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Regarding what Jasmi said-- you don't really have to worry about that until it happens, and if it _does_ happen, then the only rational thing is to let random chance select-- that is, _if_ all possibilities are equal.

1:05 AM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home