Crime: Nature or Nurture?

As I said, both are the case – nature and nurture. It isn’t one or the other.

And nurture can also be seen as inevitable, since we aren’t absolutely free to “nurture” whatever we want without limit. There are still natural logical laws that apply to and delimit nurture’s possibility.

I suppose technically it could be possible in some distant future to have a society with no crime… sure, logically its possible. But it is very unlikely to come anything in the foreseeable future, for the simple reason that such a society would need to masterfully meet every human need and desire without producing pathology and trauma. That would require such a massive amount of knowledge and technical skill, not to mention philosophical understanding, and we are nowhere near that level.

If you subscribe to the Kardeshev Scale, then humanity is presently a Type 0 civilization, we might be talking about a Type 2 or 3 civilization that can truly eliminate all crime.

they know what happens if they steal nuts from other squirrels. nature has rules and laws too - even if they are made up on the fly. our nature does know what crime means, it has the genetic traits of the ancestors, which have encoded various rules within them.

But surely squirrels have species’ member recognition as well, as within it families, to discern and forgive those outside the family. So nature’s rules can be bent.
It is the politics, of experience, rather!

There should be a third option in your poll, namely the option “BOTH (nature and nurture)” too. It is both, and it is more nature than nurture.

If you can synthesize, and believe in it, and can make it believable, then yes. But what has the demise of the Marxian paradise proven of the ages old belief of that? How convincing is it to make that kind of belief one in which people ought to give credence to?

Jerkey.

Are you referring to my post?

Only if You think it has relevance, Arminius.

Synthezise what? Believe in what? Make what believable?

Lamarck would love you. Please show me our “definition of crime” gene. Squirrels. Those nut-stealing bastards. Squirrel sees nut, takes nut. Other squirrel sees nut, tries to take nut. Fight. Call squirrel police. That was my nut says squirrel b, no says policeman squirrel, it has yet to be proven that squirrels have a concept of ‘my’.

Crime is a lot like truth.
People want to control what means what.
That’s where the power comes from.
Political power has to do with controlling morality.
And morality dictates what is and is not a crime.

Nature with Nurture.

Crime in inevitable. Society and the world sucks, so people turn to drugs. They make drugs illegal so they can make money off the incarcerations.

Yes, drug use should be considered a health issue, not a criminal issue.

Okay. I thought so.

I mean that crime is caused by both nature and nurture. Crime has its roots in nature. All living beings are criminal, but only human beings are capable of knowing what crime is. Also this human capability has its roots in nature but must be passed on by nurture. You need a brain in order to understand what crime is. If nurture can but does not let you know what crime is, then nurture causes crime. If nurture does let you know what crime is, then nurture does not cause crime, but if you nevertheless become criminal in that case, then nature, namely the nature in you, causes crime, and you yourself are responsible for it, since you can (know what crime is), and therefore you must (know what crime is). You can, so you must (cp. Kant).

You’re leaving out one aspect of “nature” - biochemical environment, “intervention”.

When your computer misbehaves, is it due to the hardware, the software, or the environment?

There is natural environment, and there is cultural environment. The biochemical environment you mentioned is part of the natural environment.

I agree there are probably no specifically crime genes. Nature has rules, if another lion successfully kills the top lion, he then fucks the female, kills the children and fucks the former kings ass. - so more of a strength gene that crime.

Nature doesn’t know what crime or sexuality is, the lion isn’t committing a crime nor is he gay, its purely about power for the lion. In a sense our laws exist simply because some have the power to enforce them, and there is a universal wish to be beneficial to the group. Theft, like all/most crimes, is a ‘crime’ of power.

There was such a time.

The person wasn’t born a criminal, the person was born with certain biological potentials.
A society is not obligated to provide everybody with opportunity or to assimilate anyone.
If there is no crime then civil-society is on its decline.
If there is lots of crime then civil-society is in the process of establishing itself.
A weak society compromised of weak people is not capable of dealing with lots of criminality and so they try to manage by making former crimes increasingly legal.

These two statements ae giving me cognitive dissonance, and yet you state them as absolutes.

Statement1 my response - So if we have a society where everyone is wealthy, happy, and content, and thus no crime, it means that society it is on it’s decline?

Statement 2 my response - So if you have a tyrannical ruler like America, or Kim Jung 2, that has so many laws you cannot even count…It is a sign of strength, and not fear and weakness of allowing the people to have basic rights?
So liberals, are basically tough, and strong, because they want to ban everything and make it illegal?