Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Do people who act immorally or a-morally need more public disgrace and shame brought on them, or less?

pentacorn · F
shame is never the answer.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
pentacorn · F
SatanBurger · 36-40, F
The problem with immorality is the same problems with morality in the fact that morals change depending on person or environment.

There's certain things like murder that is infringing on someone else's free will to live but then you have things that are not black and white. Like how some people view gay people as immoral for the same fact they support traditional marriage for instance. They think it's better and so think that's the only way to live.

I could go into semantics here why their wrong but to get the point across there's several different layers to what morality is depending on how you grew up and formed your opinions based on experiences.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
SatanBurger · 36-40, F
@AgapeLove If that's your opinion then that's your opinion but I don't really believe in shaming people. The line between victim and oppressor is often blurred.

Like I said some people view gay people as immoral and if you talk to those people, most of them really do think their the cause of all the problems.

Immorality is difficult to try to define what's good or bad unless it infringes upon the consent of another for which that is unjust and immoral.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
SW-User
Public shame doesn't necessarily cause anyone to reform. It simply causes them to double down and get defensive. Public shame tends to make people resentful. That's not to say it would happen for every person, but people who act immorally and amorally probably have been doing so for a while and one instance of public shame isn't going to be enough to get them to change their ways.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
SW-User
@AgapeLove That's the problem. We have no "middle" way of dealing with reprehensible actions. Social media has given us a very effective and easy way to shame people, but it goes too far. Any small misstep and you're, as you said, exiled socially for life. It has to be proportional to make a real change and not just enamor people against consequences.
JammieDodgerHeart · 26-30, F
This is not an easy answer as there are so many factors to consider and it raises questions like "are there morals that we share that are universally the right thing to do?" Because what's right and wrong can be sometimes a grey area depending on what it is. What's right and wrong to differs by culture, country and ideology too.

It also depends on the root cause of the immoral behaviour and the severity of it

Like someone who thinks stealing is immoral will want that person to named and shamed but this person may steal to feed their children because to them the immoral thing would be not looking after their kids

Most of the time the news reports crimes and does shame the people who do them and sometimes it's covered up to protect those powerful

I would say it depends on these factors and that actually shaming someone may do more damage also taking into consideration that someone can be accussed, frame or mistaken for doing immoral behaviour
Ryannnnnn · 31-35, M
"Social" justice isn't the way and the punishment in relation to morality is sometimes relative to the person acting as judge. One person's version of justice may be shame whilst another may be to put a brick through their window whilst their family is there.
Not to mention that without the facts and evidence it can be unreliable information and may be used as a tool to silence innocent people. It's a slippery slope.

There are times where perhaps it's understandable, but it's best to leave it to the law, otherwise we risk a person taking it too far.
That's a tough question as i disagree with the practice but in some cases things should be brought to light. It's more a question of who is virueous enough in their judgement to act as judge.
In theory I think this is ideal, but in practice I'm just not convinced it matters much anyway. I remember seeing in the news how politicians were being shamed out of dining at restaurants by politically dissenting patrons and many in the public seemed to think it wrongheaded. I only believe this isn't necessarily effective because the allure of corporate dollars is too strong to resist.

 
Post Comment