Is the criminal still the same after losing memory?

Question

I will use the Aristotle theory of Form that the soul is the characteristic of a being. Hence body and soul cannot be seperated.

Besides that i will also use the theory of bodily continuity to explain the physical part that he remain the same person as before. By using this two theories, i would say that the criminal is still the same person regardless losing his memory. How can we say that a person that keep the person on yesterday is not as the today person he is?

There is a weakness in my theory that how the soul work with the body. Can i explain that Aristotle said that soul has the four distinguish part that are reason, desire(appetite), aggression, and the purpose? Just like the knife have the soul, then the act of cutting would be the soul. Or can i counter with a question how the conciousness of us relate to our body? It is same for us that the link between them is unexplainabe and needed to be discover. Is this argument workable? Please be willing to pose any argument.

Answer 1

When men forget they are men they cease to live by the laws of man -- and thus choose to become animal.

If an animal cannot remember being a threat to people it is simply a community's responsibility to decide its fate.

This is why you and your neighbors do not accept Lions, Tigers, and Bears roaming through your home.

Answer 2

Nice question. I am not a religious person, let me be upfront. So, my views are about science and psychology.

I think there are two aspects of good behavior and bad. One is experience (which you call memories) and two the inclination of a brain to be good or bad (i wouldn't really say genes but something like that). Now erasing memories alone probably doesn't change point #2.

Personally if someone tried to kill me and almost succeeded, left me in a wheelchair or something and there was this latest technology that erases his brain totally (both Point #1 and #2), would i forgive and not be angry at the new dude? Most likely.

But the social problem with this argument (my own argument) that it makes it easier for people to commit crimes as the don't see the punishment being stronger. Hey, I can just kill a man or rape a woman and all they are going to do wipe something out of my brain. Doesn't really sound very comfortable to me.

So, scientifically, if that is possible, erasing the memory and a bit more of a criminal may render the criminal as a non-criminal but socially, hell no. Once some has been a criminal and has done some crime, the dude is a criminal.

Answer 3

It has been suggested that criminals suffer from what is called Criminal Thinking, meaning that all people entertain thoughts of immoral, unethical and basically every other negative thought, but they dont act upon that thought and ultimately purge it, a criminal does not. Example; You walk into a 7/11 at 3am, you go to the counter and no one is there, you notice the cash drawer open with a large amount of money visible, most people entertain the thought of taking it just very briefly and say no, its not worth the consequences. but a criminal just acts, immediately with no thought to consequences. Why this happens is attributed to factors present in the persons childhood. Were morals and ethics taught, did they experience compassion, empathy, did anyone really care what happened to them. This is where the 'Dont give a #@%& attitude is born! So if the memories of that life are purged and not replaced with something appropriate, I dont see that it would matter!

Answer 4

Is the act of committing a felony 'objective' or 'subjective'? The body is punished for the acts it performs at the behest of the mind. The lost of memory does not obfuscate nor ameliorate the perpetrators guilt, nor does it absolve the criminal for Their transgressions. Were the opposite the case, then surely "false memories" and "selective amnesia" would be in epidemic proportions, and none of Us would ever be held accountable for Our actions.

Answer 5

In Canada? interior the U. S., valuable. nonetheless, one might desire to play to win, and to no longer lose. --- seem, civil disobedience is usually a dropping ingredient. We study of Ralph Waldo Emerson, and of the electorate who fought against slavery. those have been heroes. yet a lot of them have been given battered and crushed down, unremembered. that's stupid to accomplish acts of civil disobedience that are losers. there is one hero on the instant -- his call his Colonel Lakin. he's locked up and being run via a politically the perfect option tutor trial, yet one absent of attending to data of the best Colonel's concerns. a militia trial, like a civil one in that modern US type the place by skill of strictly limiting the data and testimony which would be provided the court can attain a verdict of its predetermined decision. The protection is forbidden to make the perfect case it could, for the comprehensive reality of the problem. enormously un-American, no longer a tribulation committed to the factors of our founders, such as a results of fact the comprehensive protection John Adams supplied the British squaddies who have been charged with homicide on the Boston massacre. nonetheless, Colonel Lakin's his call and heroism are ordinary -- rather between the militia -- hence his efforts are a win. Being a hero is likewise no longer many times an excellent ingredient. to illustrate in a conflict or a war "heros" can get fellow warriors killed, by skill of a silly variety of heroism. yet there is one among those a real hero -- Audie Murphy being one, Sergeant York yet another, who're considerate and known of their heroic acts. Colonel Lakin is of that type. that's real civil disobedience. do no longer do it to be a hero and don't do it except you are able to win.

Answer 6

It is easier to apply paradoxes of Philosophy on Third person singular /plural .

Put 'I" ( soul,body ,mind ) everywhere whenever you have the question for any justification and you will know the answer , because if I loose soul ,mind and body( exactly in that order), I cease to exist and then all such questions become irrelevant because I ought to know them . I am for this world and not world for me

Answer 7

I smell a screenplay