A co-worker and I were discussing the relative merits of corporal punishment for prisoners (think chain gangs and flogging, not hanging and gassing). He was putting forward the idea that the threat of physical pain would prevent a lot of the crimes here (ie England) that are motivated by boredom and lack of respect. The country is being held hostage by a horde of teenagers, it has to be said.
This "discussion" got us off on a tangent about human rights (of course) and I was trying to come to terms with the rights of the criminal vs the rights of the victim in my head. And I was realising that the older I get the more I live in this grey zone of discomfort, not completely convinced of any argument, but a permanent fence sitter, a permanent devil's advocate. I'm not happy with that - we're supposed to have convictions, we're supposed to be passionate in our beliefs about things. I don't want to be one of those people who listen to all sides, nod at everyone and then have nothing to contribute. I mean, I do feel things in the midst of an argument. But I wonder if my live and let live attitude has taken over my mind, consumed the argument centres of my mind. I get a bit of a kick out of arguing for a side I don't believe in for my own amusement sometimes. Is this too frivolous?
Can you live in the grey zone? Can you exist with a flexible belief system? How flexible is too flexible? Can you embrace half a theology? Half a methodology? Can you be half a liberal? Half a conservative? Half a socialist? Half a republican? Can you really be"issues driven"? Or will you end up like Patricia de Lille, only voting for the things you think will get votes?
It's all just so much bullshit sometimes, we're all just making it up as we go along. I'd like to think that I still have the courage of my convictions. I'm just not sure I know what my convictions are anymore.
1 comment:
"we're supposed to have convictions,"
Nice bit of phrasing in a discussion that took as its departure point the correctional services.
Post a Comment