I think we can reduce our differences as to those of values. My definition of "monster" is not someone who "knowingly and purposefully spreads suffering, either for their own benefit for for fun." That is just a selfish person with no care for how their malicious acts affect others.
"Monsters," in my view, are those that are not and cannot ever be part of any cohesive human unit -- rather than those who cannot conform to a "global" moral or value system. The WASPs, mafiosos, inbred and insane aristocrats, mob-men, etc. are not what I consider monsters. They live and operate within a community. They almost always spread suffering, pain, violence, and other acts of villainy -- but that is an inescapable part of humanity. Locking them up away from the rest will not solve any long-term problems, aside from the career outlooks of politicians, district attorneys, and their ilk.
American Indians and other "primitive" tribes of people are another example (related to groups of people without strong government). All the war, bloodshed, acts of heinous despicably they commit against one another, is not something that can be whisked away by more subjugation. Brutality and suffering is a part of us. To think ourselves as civilized because we repress those urges into complete subjugation is foolhardy. Without active sublimation of these parts into socially-affirming activities, they will spill-over into other parts. We will not become "monsters," but we will do monstrous deeds unknowingly, within the comfort of our delusion of domestication.
Perhaps I lack the ability to "narrow in" on a certain issue. I miss the "trees for the forest," which makes it impossible for me to see a way to untangle this "ball of yarn" without methodically understanding the tangle of all the collective "strings". And for that, I do think your views are much more practical and applicable in the present.
That is a very insightful comment, thank you for making it. I think I understand your original point a little better than I did.
> To think ourselves as civilized because we repress those urges into complete subjugation is foolhardy.
Given your belief about the existence of inherent brutality in humanity (which I agree with) is a "civilized person" actually an achievable goal? I have gone this far believing that the definition of a "civilized" person is some with normal, inherent uncivilized urges that effectively controls ("subjugates") those urges enough to create civilization. (Peace and prosperity via collaboration and material surplus.)
Also, if exile to prison is not actually solving any long-term problems, what do you think is a possibile course of action that does address long-term problems?
"Monsters," in my view, are those that are not and cannot ever be part of any cohesive human unit -- rather than those who cannot conform to a "global" moral or value system. The WASPs, mafiosos, inbred and insane aristocrats, mob-men, etc. are not what I consider monsters. They live and operate within a community. They almost always spread suffering, pain, violence, and other acts of villainy -- but that is an inescapable part of humanity. Locking them up away from the rest will not solve any long-term problems, aside from the career outlooks of politicians, district attorneys, and their ilk.
American Indians and other "primitive" tribes of people are another example (related to groups of people without strong government). All the war, bloodshed, acts of heinous despicably they commit against one another, is not something that can be whisked away by more subjugation. Brutality and suffering is a part of us. To think ourselves as civilized because we repress those urges into complete subjugation is foolhardy. Without active sublimation of these parts into socially-affirming activities, they will spill-over into other parts. We will not become "monsters," but we will do monstrous deeds unknowingly, within the comfort of our delusion of domestication.
Perhaps I lack the ability to "narrow in" on a certain issue. I miss the "trees for the forest," which makes it impossible for me to see a way to untangle this "ball of yarn" without methodically understanding the tangle of all the collective "strings". And for that, I do think your views are much more practical and applicable in the present.