[-A Brief on Objective & Subjective Morality & the Prison System-]

First, I’d like to define the main terms I’m dealing with so as to minimize confusion.

Something is objective if it’s based on facts and uncorrupted by bias.

Something is subjective is it’s based on opinions, and is thus far more malleable.

Something is moral if it relates to principles of right and wrong in behavior.

The main definition of “right” equates it to something that is “good”, and “good” is defined as having favorable characteristics or tendencies, righteous, being without disease, etc.  I took the definitions all the way down to “good”, because good is the closest we get to an objective word. It still isn’t entirely, but it’s closer than “right” or “moral”.

We can say that, for example, with no other information on the matter present, cancer is not “good”. Rape is not “good”.  Torture is not “good”.

However, because many other factors will always be present, everything is some amount of good and bad. The key is in weighing those factors. Also, not every situation, or every person, is worthy of the same treatment, and if we were to neglect retribution, denouncing it as immoral because it does cause harm, (and therefore is not “good” at its core”,) then our entire justice system would be immoral. It can be assumed that the amount of “bad” would increase substantially if we did not include justice within our moral code.

This is my personal basis for a moral code: The entire spectrum between harm and help is one side, and the other is justice, preferably in a beneficial form.

I take this template and apply it to everything I do. Yes, it is subjective, but I base my opinions as much on facts as I am able. …And of course it is not a perfect science.

I don’t find this a confusing system to start with, despite that weighing is almost always somewhat subjective. The most important thing to do when attempting to utilize it is to rid yourself as much as possible of any predispositions. If you subconsciously have a predestination in mind for the morality answer, (such as a holy book,) you’re going to ruin your chances at getting the most objective answer.

Now, I’d like to write a bit about “side 2” of my moral system. I’d like to state a few things here before I really get into what role I think justice should play. I am an advocate of the death penalty and slavery, but I typically do not agree with torture.

Currently, when someone commits a crime, they are sent to a facility to be locked up for a time determined by their crime. Let’s say, for example, that an individual is sent to prison for 20 years and they are currently 20 years old. They need food, shelter, security, healthcare, (as prisoners have it automatically,) and utilities as a base, and, of course, if they are released without a sufficient amount of money, they will more easily revert back to crime. Additionally, prison does not have the effect of rehabilitating anyone. For that, counseling is needed. Educational advancement is also often offered.

I do not know the exact numbers, but it does cost more than most of us (and our spouses, if we have them,) will ever make in our lifetimes to keep someone in prison for their life. My step-father and brother both work in the prison system, and my father did as well before he died. Occasionally, prisoners will do some form of work, but it is fairly rare. Companies sue, claiming that business is being taken away from them, and the prisoners end up idling in their cells, soaking up tax dollars that could otherwise be going toward improving schools, community activities, etc… I am a large advocate of “needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few”. Vulcans know their shit. This ideal is far more important to me than economic freedom.

Either we spend vast quantities on cash on prisoners to do nothing but be fed, get healthcare, (which they often utilize by stabbing themselves just to get out of their cells for a while,) have free shelter, etc, and let the rich owners of manufacturing companies run amok with our ideals of freedom… Or we can set up prisons as manufacturing companies, and work those prisoners for 8-12 hours a day. Many low-income individuals have to work that much merely to get by, and many of them do not have healthcare.

Most of this money goes to paying for the prisoners’ costs. Some of it goes to pay the victim(s) of the crime, (if there was any.) If the criminal’s jail time is temporary, then the rest goes in to a fund they can use when they are released, (or will be automatically used to pay for an apartment in a government-run apartment building until they find a job outside of prison.) If the system is very profitable, the rest of the money can be filtered back into the economy, into healthcare and education, both areas that, if they were improved, would reduce the amount of children who become criminals.

When someone is placed in to prison, it’s said that they are “paying their debt to society”, but it’s actually quite the opposite right now.

Anyone who is forced to work is a slave, so any prisoner who is forced to work while in prison is a slave, which is why I had to say that I agree with slavery.

Now, let’s look at the system that’s been developed here. What if a criminal refuses to work? Imagine a multi-tiered system of available prison jobs, from working in a greenhouse for 8 hours a day, (for minor crimes,) to cooking in the cafeteria to 12 hour factory jobs for the worst offenders. Additionally, minor offenders have access to education, therapy, and recreational programs. Now say that anyone can move up and down the scale based on behavior, and their sentence can even change, (in the negative.) Good behavior and hard work gets better working conditions, but if a prisoner refuses to work, they get bumped down the scale, and their sentence gets extended, as we have to consider the safety and productivity of society as a whole, and an individual like that would be almost entirely detrimental if released.

The end of the line, however, is death. Someone who refuses to be a part of society should not remain a burden and should be put out of everyone’s misery. This is what is better for society as a whole. Also, consider that this person knew the consequences, and so he chose his fate quite openly. I think, if we had this system, there would be no need for the death penalty for anyone who cooperated. I never see strictly punishment as beneficial to anyone, and therefore it is immoral by my standards. I believe in restitution.

I will write many more posts on how I apply my moral system to various topics, (especially since this focused more on the principle of restitution over simple punishment, rather than weighing “good” and “bad” on a moral scale,) but I hope this has given a decent introduction.

If you see anything that is blatantly incorrect, (as we are all flawed,) merely point it out and direct me to some evidence. I am not above editing posts and crediting others for their assistance.