A place for philosophical/political ideas to stew.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
The Only Real Question
Today is a Tuesday, just like any other Tuesday. But at the same time, it is not like any other Tuesday. Because on no other Tuesday did I sit at this table out in the Court of Sciences at UCLA and begin to write about my state of being. How many Tuesdays have passed like today, how many Tuesdays are to come? What is there that I have that can make my Tuesdays unique? What can I do next Tuesday that makes it worthwhile? These are interesting talking points, points that I don't intend to talk about. These questions presuppose other notions that make these questions possible. Notions such as our existence is real and that this existence may or may not possess intrinsic meaning or value. Why are we here? What am I and why do I do what I do? These are the questions that everyone asks and no one answers, no one can answer, no one will answer. Because it is not the answer that interests the inquirer but that which he discovers about himself along the way. It is important every once in a while to talk to yourself, make sure your still there. Make sure you know who it is you are and who it is you intend to become, or if you want to become. Thoreau said that the greatest tragedy is when you die with the realization that in fact you had never lived. I would amend that statement by saying the greatest human tragedy would be to look at oneself before retiring from this world and not to recognize your oneself, to die realizing you did not know who you were. Without knowing self, you cannot realize your life, your ambitions, your dreams, your goals, your loves, your hates, your existence and maybe even your purpose or meaning. You will die not having lived if you live not knowing who you are. So the final question then is this, who am I. Yahweh says I AM WHO AM. Lets think about that.
Saturday, August 2, 2008
White Collar Crime, An Alternative Explanation
Here I shall deal with the apparent injustice of the punishments metered out to white collar criminals versus violent crimes. I take as a given that such an injustice exists (though this is certainly debatable). I cannot prove that my explanation is the correct one, but I only hear one explanation for this, and lest we fall into the trap of thinking that since it's the only one it must be the correct one, I am providing an alternative. The common explanation is that the white collar criminals are rich, and thus aren't prosecuted to the full extent.
A little introduction before my alternative explanation is necessary. I think that all laws can be classified into either a general or specific category. The laws I assign to the specific category are laws that few people would break even if they didn't exist (like murder). The laws that I assign to the general category are laws that many people would break if they didn't exist (like speeding, even though everyone breaks that law anyway).
My explanation is that white collar crimes fall into the general category, whereas violent crimes fall into the specific one. Thus, ultimately we feel that we are not that different from white collar criminals, because we would act the same in their position, and that is why we don't want to punish them as much as violent offenders. We feel that violent offenders are very different from us, and have no moral standing. White collar criminals are really just like us, except they aren't afraid of the law. Violent criminals are pathological and dangerous.
Before you say "I'd never commit fraud against my customers" or something like that, let's consider a simpler example. Insider Trading. You are not allowed to spread knowledge about your company in private. That is, suppose you're the CEO of Intel, and you have this giant chip coming out that's going to be huge. You can't tell your friend that this is happening and advise him to buy stock. If you tell someone, you have to tell everyone publicly. Certainly, people would do it hand over fist if the law didn't exist. Yet it's something that damages the people that aren't in the know. How is it really different from fraud? Or how about this, you and your competitor agree to pay a certain amount to your employees. Hey, you're saving money, you're not tricking anyone, why wouldn't you do it? Well, it's illegal, and it hurts the employees.
So, my alternative explanation is that White Collar Crime is punished less because we feel more empathy towards those criminals, than we do towards the Violent ones.
A little introduction before my alternative explanation is necessary. I think that all laws can be classified into either a general or specific category. The laws I assign to the specific category are laws that few people would break even if they didn't exist (like murder). The laws that I assign to the general category are laws that many people would break if they didn't exist (like speeding, even though everyone breaks that law anyway).
My explanation is that white collar crimes fall into the general category, whereas violent crimes fall into the specific one. Thus, ultimately we feel that we are not that different from white collar criminals, because we would act the same in their position, and that is why we don't want to punish them as much as violent offenders. We feel that violent offenders are very different from us, and have no moral standing. White collar criminals are really just like us, except they aren't afraid of the law. Violent criminals are pathological and dangerous.
Before you say "I'd never commit fraud against my customers" or something like that, let's consider a simpler example. Insider Trading. You are not allowed to spread knowledge about your company in private. That is, suppose you're the CEO of Intel, and you have this giant chip coming out that's going to be huge. You can't tell your friend that this is happening and advise him to buy stock. If you tell someone, you have to tell everyone publicly. Certainly, people would do it hand over fist if the law didn't exist. Yet it's something that damages the people that aren't in the know. How is it really different from fraud? Or how about this, you and your competitor agree to pay a certain amount to your employees. Hey, you're saving money, you're not tricking anyone, why wouldn't you do it? Well, it's illegal, and it hurts the employees.
So, my alternative explanation is that White Collar Crime is punished less because we feel more empathy towards those criminals, than we do towards the Violent ones.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)