Crime: Nature or Nurture?
If a person commits a crime: theft, rape, murder, etc.
Then is it because (s)he was born as a criminal,
Or “society failed” to educate or provide opportunity for the person?
Choose One, then explain and justify your answer.
Inevitability.
Your vote would be appreciated.
Sorry, but the option of ‘both’ and ‘to be honest - it’s not about the individual really’ were missing.
We have genes that set the thermostat for impulsiveness, and our abilities to forsee the consequences of our actions. We have societies that, from a system analysis pov., will always contain a niche for crime and criminals. The actual predispositonal make-up of a given human population living in that society doesn’t matter, crime will still occur regardless, over time.
So you’re trolling for attention? Oh ok
It is both, of course. Natural predispositions as well as environmental/social influences and circumstance. But since I can only choose one option, I choose nurture since this is the most dominant of the two factors in this particular equation of “criminality”.
And tab is correct that crime is inevitable. But that shouldn’t stop anyone from trying to improve things. If one’s standard is absolute perfection then they’re going to be disappointed, so say the least.
Peacefulness is a philosophical value. So is the ability to fight and defend oneself. Existentially speaking, being fights to establish its own peace upon its respective world/s. Violence as a means to other ends.
Then there is violence for violence’s sake, which doesn’t really exist due to being in fact an instantiate on of pre-human animality within human being. Certain pathological conditions can come together and provide the impetus for a “pure excessiveness”, that at times may be acted out as “violence for the sake of violence”, the impulse to destroy; Thanatos, unguided will to power, “evil”, sadism, etc.
Lol, if I’m trolling, then I must be the Da Vinci of troll.
It is both of course, but the question is posed in an either/or form. So technically, both would be an improper question. More succinctly , the which side the answer lays, is not determined by modeling logic, but by looking at differences between the 2 choices.
Therefore, in this context it’s a matter of probability, that determine which. Therefore answering this in analogically, constructs a probabilistic scheme, whereby the answer resulted from a linear choice begs an answer beyond it’s scope. It expects a functional construct from linear basis.
These two types of arguments can not work. Therefore, any conclusion drawn, may not be assessed, because it’s ground falls away.
The heredity versus environment debate on this functional level would be at best, inconclusive.
Maybe it is more right to say, that the matter of a structural analysis misses the point, by pointing to a paradox. Perhaps studies of identical twins, may provide some clue.
If crime is inevitable then that is an argument for nature, not nurture.
Can not wrong nurturing also lead to crime?
Its not the person who’s to blame but the world, so both but neither. The person committing the crime is doing so because ‘their’ causality is making them act like that, so I think that could be swapped out or is exchangeable. Prevention and punishment should be with respect to causality and not the individual, who is after all a victim of causality themselves.
Sure, but crime is a social construct. Squirrels don’t steal nuts from trees. Our ‘nature’ doesn’t have the faintest clue what crime means.
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?