– of Patrick Lee Cheatham – under brainstorming development – open to public view rough original creative content
Real-time Readership Inspires Avid Writing!
In this opinion essay, basic everyday mild-to-moderate preferred treatment ethics are considered to range from: totally optional inclinations aimed to not unduly hassle self or others, in fair reaction to preceding behaviors of all involved, to inclinations to please others and self in bonus extra manners, with the range then increasing to severe issues. So ethics in this assessment is not considered to only exist in dramatically intense or theatrically entertaining situations.
Ethics are always there as a feature of all human nature, for all persons at absolutely all times, no matter how some wondered-about type of sadistic oriented person could actually aim his or her preferred goals and outcomes, in the form of dreams or plans to exact suffering and misery upon others, for some sort of reward in doing that, which places value in ways foreign to most of us, but conceivable to many of us in outside look in notion. A conceptual sadist, to the reader and to me, I put forth would at least have care as to how self-treated or effected by others and thus have “self-ethics” and ability to be dissuaded — enough to verbally or physically defend by way of retort or disengagement and exit the affective mental area of interplay.
Feasible “Punishism” (new term)
In my opinion, the informal self-indoctrination to a world view whereby the sadistic conceptual thinking and feeling type as possessing “no ethics” makes no sense to me except as a self-indoctrinating philosophy for a fool to launch on an evil acting witch hunt against so-imagined offenders. Ethics need not be grand or noble or about rescue. “He or she doesn’t have to wave back at me” is an ethical issue, when just volunteering a wave to a stranger while shopping, for case in point, and is far more optional and absolutely nonimperative, instead manifesting only in high drama “righteous” moral codifications. No real person, of conceivable evil intent — in his or her waking dreams and plans — could thus be fairly handled if total lack of ethics were truly possible. To engage in posturing oneself as having to self-restraint superior ethics, is dangerous and amounts to a defamation of character of the entire human species. In contrast, our whole human species by nature always possesses some ethics toward self, and some ethics toward others, even if inconsistent and twisted. This conceptual type of behavior in persons I refer to as a case of “punishism” self-supported by a superiority presumption rant on about some others having “no ethics” which can cause a rapid and deep dive of self-doctrine into abusive torturing and competitive revenge very easily, justifying the infractions on criminals and convicts building up in a “punisher” witch hunt mentality by way of such world views as that which espouses that some people “deserve” abuse (punishment) while others don’t.
Feasible “Preventism” (new term)
“Punishism” mentioned above, differs from the seeming more numerous and prevalent of persons capable of accidentally or temperamentally committing evil upon others, the conceptual type of which seem well described as “preventers,” to my considering their behaviors. They often operate in self-indoctrinating ignorance of effects on others, and often prompt in society and governments abusive “policies” rather than unique acts, and never directly perpetrate upon others, but instead are a force of pressure upon legal code makers and government officials unethically bending policies into brutal procedures with dictated minimum recourses inflated and dire. The “preventer” conceptual type would be driven by a fearful seeking of a warranty effect toward the elimination of absolutely all chance that he or she or others cared about could ever fall victim to a “sadistic” person in type, by way of draconian perfect imprisonment punishment desires, or by way of ineffective deterrent inflation of punishments unknown as to severity by any perpetrator until after being apprehended for offense, and thus practically of no use as deterrent. Also, the “preventer” preemptively targets for results years ahead of time, promoting and petitioning and pressuring for stricter legal codes, out of fear that something might happen in the future by somebody, which puts at risk a future that is months to years ahead from ever possibly existing, or not existing, and creates draconian legal codes with perfectionistic and impossible goals of stopping crimes before they could ever manifest. I believe this amounts to criminal usage of the imagination for preemptive attack on others to pave ones own path ahead more safely and smoothly, fighting against only specters of imagined future threats, not yet manifested. It is criminal in behavior as it condemns every citizen of the United States (who all might do something) to stricter preventative measures and tighter penalization penal codes, and by sacrificing others for the “preventers” own increased sense of overly selfish warranty of safety, in the expensing of all others in a lengthy future ahead.
Keeping matters in perspective, it is obvious that the “punisher” and “preventer” types are not as likely to plan great abuse on others like the sadistic type might, except that these two types are notorious at excluding criminals or convicts from counting as deserving of defense from others, or from themselves.
Fortunately a “preventer” person’s possible tendency to crack down on the future of all, and/or accidentally aim to violate basic human rights of convicts, could be totally corrected, and maybe for lifelong duration, once he or she were to be alerted to his or her unawares harmful effect on lifestyle or limb of other persons. This is not likely true for the revenging “punisher” conceptual type, nor the sadistic type.
When Evil Deeds are Done, by those Not Sadistic Nor of Evil Intent
The danger of the “preventer” is that good general goals are mixed with detailed action goals in an overly simplistic manner, and a manner never honoring that all persons involved – perpetrator and victim – are to be considered for fair and reasonable defense of their personal liberties, and are both to be considered potentially in imminent danger of crime against the other. “Preventer/punisher” types often seem sadly and likely unhappily fixated on punishment in the future to counterbalance any crime already complete, done, and rendered unlikely for repeat similar offense, in some Einsteinian time irrelevancy guilty of not allowing the past to fade, and keeping crime alive, in reverse.