"Chav - the Musical"

[noel emits]

If you're going to stab someone then doing it in the hand as at least being slightly considerate I think.

Sorry mistersloane, I realise that was your hand. It's Sunday I'm feeling insensitive.

 

[mistersloane]

If you're going to stab someone then doing it in the hand as at least being slightly considerate I think.

Sorry mistersloane, I realise that was your hand. It's Sunday I'm feeling insensitive.

He was aiming for my face and my hand got in the way. I laugh about it now.

 

[Mr. Tea]

It's somewhat less considerate than not stabbing someone at all...
I think it's a very noble thing to be able to forgive, but as I said, if I was in sloane's position, I'd find it very hard not to want the guy punished if he was genuinely responsible for his actions, and I think it'd be irresponsible not to ensure some kind of secure treatment if he wasn't.

Of course, this just comes back round to the discussion of to what extent people are ever 'responsible' for anything...I'd agree with noel that for most people it's a case of self-determination within a framework of psychological parameters determined to a large extent by external circumstances.

 

[mistersloane]

It's somewhat less considerate than not stabbing someone at all...
I think it's a very noble thing to be able to forgive, but as I said, if I was in sloane's position, I'd find it very hard not to want the guy punished if he was genuinely responsible for his actions, and I think it'd be irresponsible not to ensure some kind of secure treatment if he wasn't.

Of course, this just comes back round to the discussion of to what extent people are ever 'responsible' for anything...I'd agree with noel that for most people it's a case of self-determination within a framework of psychological parameters determined to a large extent by external circumstances.

It gets more complicated than that when it actually happens. I was just pointing out that there are people around who don't immediately go running to the state if trouble flares - who can see round things, and that even in really harsh situations there are more answers than eithers and ors, you said you couldn't believe that anyone genuinely believed that, so i thought I'd give a personal exampple.

 

[Mr. Tea]

But if you don't mind me asking, what did you actually do in, or after, this incident? Was it nothing? Because if you can overcome any personal feelings of ill-will towards this guy (to the point of not pressing charges), then that's great for you, but unless you have a very good reason for thinking he's not going to do something like that again, it seems irresponsible to just allow him to escape any form of confinement or treatment.

I'm really sorry if this is taking a lecture-like tone - it's not meant to at all and I'm just glad I've never been in a situtation like this - I'm just saying how I think I'd feel if something like this happened to me.

 

[mistersloane]

But if you don't mind me asking, what did you actually do in, or after, this incident? Was it nothing? Because if you can overcome any personal feelings of ill-will towards this guy (to the point of not pressing charges), then that's great for you, but unless you have a very good reason for thinking he's not going to do something like that again, it seems irresponsible to just allow him to escape any form of confinement or treatment.

I'm really sorry if this is taking a lecture-like tone - it's not meant to at all and I'm just glad I've never been in a situtation like this - I'm just saying how I think I'd feel if something like this happened to me.

It was a case of him ( a 6'3 Jamaican guy ) thinking he could take out stuff prison-style on what ( he inferred ) was a 5'4 fag, having just got out of pen and being wired off his skull. So I went to the oldest, hardest, most God-fearing old Jamaican lady on the street, and told her what happened, and told my downstairs neighbour, who was an old cane-carrying Jamaican guy, and two days later got a written and verbal apology from both him and his wife, which I accepted, letting them know that once is an accident, but if any shit happened again, ever, me and the community would get em evicted, and we all had to live there, and if he didn't like me to just stay the FUCK out of my face. I still hate to think of the bollocking he got from the old lady, she hit me once just cos I didn't go to a meeting.

I'm very wary of the police, and in this case it would have been stupid to go to them anyway - it would have put me in perpetual danger from repercussions - I had to stop some very heavy mates from sorting him out, for similar reasons, plus he'd just got out and I didn't wanna see him go back. What it took was for him to have to see that I was as connected within the community as he was, but I recognise that doesn't often happen in these cases. I don't wanna go on, but it's an answer to "If someone were to mug you or assault you in the street, would you not press charges, because your attacker was somehow compelled to do it by irresistible forces beyond his control?", and the answer to that is yes.

 

[elgato]

"We" might well make of our lives what "we" choose, but what determines the "we" that makes such choices. Merely retreating to a position of sentimental attachment to the idea of "desert" because it is psychologically and socially self-justifying is not a satisfactory answer... If everything is entirely determined it makes precisely zero difference whether we propagate the pernicious idea of "desert" or not of course...

Quite embarrassingly I can’t fully understand what you're saying...

I think perhaps my words misrepresented my thoughts on this, although more than likely (in fact definitely) my thoughts contain considerable inconsistencies. The way I used the word "we" was particularly jumbled I think, as I very much agree with what I think your first point is (that any degree of preference one way or another, in any decision, is still born of a tendency which is born of factors outside of our control?).

I suppose I was toying with the question as to the degree to which one should proclaim this belief to those who do not share the view... whether it does more damage than good (this is a key inconsistency / issue, in that my 'good' I feel is very much formed from the echoes of the arbitrary morality with which I was raised - broadly speaking I suppose things like that it is 'good' for people to be happy, to be satisfied with themselves and work within community and society for greater human welfare – ignoring the various qualifications required in those). Here lies my concern in that the idea of ‘desert’ breeds shame, lack of self-respect, guilt etc, but if determination is truly accepted it is hard to maintain the possibility of pride, sense of achievement, drive (except artificially), which could have very negative personal and collective consequences. Am I right to think that what you’re saying that it doesn’t matter, because logic should take precedence over an irrational/arbitrary idea of ‘good’?

On a secondary note, are there not two questions of morality at play here? One being personal moral responsibility / value, the other broader morality? Obviously they’re interlinked, but does an absence of free will necessarily exclude the possibility of any morality? (I refer to your final sentence, although I think perhaps I haven’t understood properly)

Does that make any sense?! I’m not feeling very articulate of late…

 

[elgato]

It looks like this whole debate is boiling down to the old free-will-vs-determinism argument, then - and confirming the impression I get from certain sections of the left that they believe humans are essentially automata. Because this seems to be an inescapable conclusion of the line of thought that human actions are dictated by environmental pressures to the point that its irrational to reward to apparent 'success' or punish 'wrongdoing'.

I dont see it as the conclusion, rather the starting point… but its not tied to environmental factors; whether genetic or environmental, the inputs which make us who we are are still outside of our control.

So is this what you really think? I just can't believe anyone genuinely thinks like this, in their heart of hearts. When you get Christmas presents from your family, do you intentionally not thank them because they're not 'deserving' of thanks? If someone were to mug you or assault you in the street, would you not press charges, because your attacker was somehow compelled to do it by irresistible forces beyond his control?

I rationally think this, and try to translate this into my actions, but obviously a lot of the time I still act otherwise, because its not easy to over-ride the 17 or 18 years of conditioning which went down before my political / philosophical consciousness began to develop…

In any case, should our beliefs be dictated by what is consistent with feeling nice or good inside? Should we start with what makes us feel that way then work backwards to find the best fit fundamentals?

As to the criminal question, I would never want to throw a vulnerable person into the fuckery that is our criminal justice system on the basis of some antiquated, religiously-infused idea of vengeance, retribution or deserts – the primary, almost sole, concern for me (I hope) would be how that person could best be habilitated to better co-exist with society, with a degree of respect given to pragmatically how dangerous they could be. Although clearly that’s a hard thing (almost hypothetical) to implement for an individual, although Mr Sloane seems perhaps to have done pretty well…

 

[swears]

Regarding violence, I still think anyone of any background who uses their size and physical strength to assault someone else for no good reason (not that I think there are many good reasons for violence) is commiting an abuse of power.

 

[elgato]

i agree, but the question posed is whether they can be morally accountable for that abuse of power...

 

[Slothrop]

So is it reasonable to hold the producers of Chav - The Musical accountable for what they've done?

I'd like to think it is, but presumably they're also just unwitting products of their environment.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Sounds like you had a good outcome from that, mistersloane - of course, having other neighbours who have some sort of leverage on a man like that is handy.

 

[Mr. Tea]

i agree, but the question posed is whether they can be morally accountable for that abuse of power...

Yes, I would say so, as long as we're talking about someone who isn't insane. There may have been circumstances that have made a person more likely to behave immorally than another person, but that does not completely negate the immorality of their actions.

 

[elgato]

So is it reasonable to hold the producers of Chav - The Musical accountable for what they've done?

I'd like to think it is, but presumably they're also just unwitting products of their environment.

Well if you accept the argument then no-one is morally responsible, there is no such thing as moral responsibility. But accountable is potentially a different thing I feel... if you construct an ethical framework where you feel happy to say that something is positive for particular reasons or negative for others, you can still make an argument to censure or criticise the actions which you believe are negative, but of course it changes the whole dynamic of how you have to look at dealing with the actions and any form of punishment

edit. actually accountable is too loaded a term i think, but do you get what i mean? i guess practical accountability

 

[elgato]

Yes, I would say so, as long as we're talking about someone who isn't insane. There may have been circumstances that have made a person more likely to behave immorally than another person, but that does not completely negate the immorality of their actions.

Leaving aside the issue of having a set moral framework to relate all of this to…is yours then essentially a practical morality? It matters not the mind of the act or the factors which cause it, purely whether the act transpired, and falls into one of many certain categories? Why then is insanity treated differently?

 

[Mr. Tea]

Well I would say I consider there to be some kind of sliding scale: on the one hand, a person acting with malicious but totally rational intent; on the other, a mad person acting in an irrational way involuntarily; and, in between these two, someone with what you might call a personality disorder: a person with violent/criminal/antisocial tendencies who has some mitigating personal history (broken home, rough school, drug/alcohol problems, all the usual suspects).

A person in the third category is not going to be helped by a legal culture that says, without qualification, "there there, it wasn't your fault, you can't help it and can't be held responsible for your actions", as he will then get used to the idea that it's his right to carry on acting in this manner. If you tell someone they're not responsible for themselves, they will act irresponsibly, surely? At the same time, every effort should be made to try and help the person adjust to a normal, non-criminal life, as a huge proportion of prison inmates have mental problems of one sort or another and very often almost nothing by way of qualifications and job prospects. All in all, I think there should be much more emphasis on rehabilitation in the justice system, rather than simple punishment.

 

[elgato]

Well I would say I consider there to be some kind of sliding scale: on the one hand, a person acting with malicious but totally rational intent; on the other, a mad person acting in an irrational way involuntarily; and, in between these two, someone with what you might call a personality disorder: a person with violent/criminal/antisocial tendencies who has some mitigating personal history (broken home, rough school, drug/alcohol problems, all the usual suspects).

A person in the third category is not going to be helped by a legal culture that says, without qualification, "there there, it wasn't your fault, you can't help it and can't be held responsible for your actions", as he will then get used to the idea that it's his right to carry on acting in this manner. If you tell someone they're not responsible for themselves, they will act irresponsibly, surely? At the same time, every effort should be made to try and help the person adjust to a normal, non-criminal life, as a huge proportion of prison inmates have mental problems of one sort or another and very often almost nothing by way of qualifications and job prospects. All in all, I think there should be much more emphasis on rehabilitation in the justice system, rather than simple punishment.

But the central question isn’t one of social efficacy, its of philosophy… potentially negative social consequences are no argument in the debate in theory. So, ask yourself, what forms a person’s ‘rationality’? What inspires someone to act one way or another in key decisions? Which of these factors is fundamentally within the control of the individual?

But in any case, looking at it on a practical level, ignoring any potential repression of reason and logic (an issue I tried clumsily to raise upthread), regarding criminality, I think that there is an ideal worth shooting towards whereby attempts are made to help people who have developed ‘negative’ tendencies to work away from them, while propagating an awareness that they are not to blame for what has happened... where the difficulties of their lives are explicitly acknowledged, and the undertone that fundamentally this is your fault is removed. It is dangerous, it cannot be denied, some are going to take liberties, especially immediately, but over time that could change, and as a result untold numbers of frustrated, angry, alienated youths would find themselves in a very different position, and might find themselves having less reason to be angry. And its not just about criminality or anti-social behaviour, but for those who have simply found life in our system extremely difficult, and have failed to ‘succeed’. And further, the other side of the coin, for those who have found themselves in incredibly good positions to have a much stronger awareness of the essentially arbitrary nature of their success, and thus a touch more humility and social consciousness

 

[Mr. Tea]

I have to say, I disagree pretty strongly with that. Firstly, I would emend the 'some' that will 'take liberties' to 'many, if not most, if not all'. People have to learn that there are forms of behaviour which are not socially acceptable; some people have the misfortune not to learn this in childhood, and it's much harder to learn it as an adult, but it's certainly better late than never. I think the "nothing's your fault" doctrine is very damaging, as it leads to adults with no sense of social or morally responsibilty. Sorry if this all sounds very Victorian to you, but I think the self-censure that comes from knowing one's actions were wrong - guilt, remorse, atonement or whatever - is potentially a far better deterent against future transgressions than prison. For one thing, if someone is sent to prison in the full belief that the system had no moral right or authority to do that to him, surely he's going to emerge far more angry and disenfranchised than someone who accepts that they have done wrong?

Edit: your point about people in positions of wealth and power having more humility and social consciousness is well made (although that doesn't mean people who work hard and apply their talents shouldn't reap the rewards of that - plenty of people born into positions of privilege piss it all away, after all).

 

[elgato]

Really though once you accept that there is no such thing as just deserts, and reject retribution and vengeance etc, prison would only be for the very few people who are essentially impossible to change, and pose a big enough threat to society (obviously ‘big enough’ would have to be decided). In any case, new systems and concepts to deal with anti-social behaviour need to develop, those currently used are archaic, mal-administrated and not working.

But I know that I’m being starry-eyed and more than a bit optimistic about the transition. But as it stands I don’t think its either philosophically acceptable or practically effective.

Further, I put the point on success much more lightly than I feel, because I would argue that philosophically speaking, they should not reap the benefits of their good fortune, or at least they have no more right to do so than anyone else. Because ‘working hard’ and ‘applying oneself’ are faculties again arbitrarily formed, by factors outside of their control.

Which brings us back to the central point – this is all political and social debate, and isn’t relevant when examining the fundamental philosophical question…

 

[Mr. Tea]

Which brings us back to the central point – this is all political and social debate, and isn’t relevant when examining the fundamental philosophical question…

...which is why, to the chagrin of Plato and his buddies, countries are generally not ruled by philosophers.