When to Stop
Feb. 8th, 2008 06:32 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ysabetwordsmithI've been contemplating the interesting Ai-Naidari concept of Correction, comparing it to other fictional and factual examples.
Here's a factual example: referring to unwed mothers as "sluts." The article refers to a politician who thinks that unwed mothers should be punished for getting pregnant by being shunned and shamed ... more or less permanently.
In order for punishment to be effective, it has to be 1) prompt, 2) relevant, and 3) finite. When you see a puppy peeing on the carpet, you yell at the puppy and take it outside, and maybe put it in the crate for a while; but the point won't be made if you keep yelling at the puppy long after it stops peeing. Unless you plan on killing the person who did something wrong, at some point that person needs to interact with other people again. So the goal is to prevent future misbehavior, and if one is punished forever, that drastically reduces one's ability and motivation to participate in society in a healthy manner. Permanent punishment, ethical considerations aside, is actively counterproductive.
A fictional example: When Aslan returns Edmund to his siblings, he tells them, "There will be no need to speak of this to Edmund." That's a good line for dealing with situations where one child has collossally screwed up and others know about it. It's been dealt with -- we saw part of the lecture on the hill -- and now it's done with. Drop the topic.
One of the many things I think is wrong with the world today is a widespread tendency to treat mistakes as permanent, instead of establishing some appropriate recompense and then considering the matter finished.
Here's a factual example: referring to unwed mothers as "sluts." The article refers to a politician who thinks that unwed mothers should be punished for getting pregnant by being shunned and shamed ... more or less permanently.
In order for punishment to be effective, it has to be 1) prompt, 2) relevant, and 3) finite. When you see a puppy peeing on the carpet, you yell at the puppy and take it outside, and maybe put it in the crate for a while; but the point won't be made if you keep yelling at the puppy long after it stops peeing. Unless you plan on killing the person who did something wrong, at some point that person needs to interact with other people again. So the goal is to prevent future misbehavior, and if one is punished forever, that drastically reduces one's ability and motivation to participate in society in a healthy manner. Permanent punishment, ethical considerations aside, is actively counterproductive.
A fictional example: When Aslan returns Edmund to his siblings, he tells them, "There will be no need to speak of this to Edmund." That's a good line for dealing with situations where one child has collossally screwed up and others know about it. It's been dealt with -- we saw part of the lecture on the hill -- and now it's done with. Drop the topic.
One of the many things I think is wrong with the world today is a widespread tendency to treat mistakes as permanent, instead of establishing some appropriate recompense and then considering the matter finished.
