Selectively accepting existing paradigms may lead to a one dimensional view of an issue for an individual.
The capital punishment has been decreasingly implemented by countries worldwide, however, Singapore continues to practice it. There are many sides to the debate about the death penalty and deeply rooted in them are paradigms. An example of a practical paradigm would be the possibility of wrongful conviction. If newly found evidence shows that another person had carried out the crime, the death penalty cannot be undone and justice won’t be served to the innocent victim who has since passed. A second paradigm takes on a biological approach: the methods by which death row inmates are killed are often extremely painful by themselves or if not delivered correctly. Another paradigm employs a statistical approach: there are no numbers which prove that the death of criminals due to the death penalty reduce the number of crimes being committed. No evidence states that it is more effective than lifetime imprisonment and it often doesn’t account for the emotional or mental state of the perpetrator.
Some of these paradigms are culturally influenced: some countries have an individualistic culture, others have a collectivistic culture. This is important to keep in mind in the case of Singapore as it is a collectivistic society. These deeply engrained cultural norms can affect an individual’s conception. For example, in California, where marijuana is legal, knowing that someone can be sentenced the death penalty in Singapore for dealing with 2 kilograms of the substance will be met with horror and astonishment. However, most Singaporeans might view it as just, as drugs are a threat to the society they live in due to the number of lives negatively impacted. The attitudes toward the death penalty are shaped by the importance of maintaining social harmony in collectivistic cultures. A survey conducted found that 95% of Singaporeans agree with the capital punishment. Furthermore, a paradigm states that people should pay for the crimes they have committed; murderers deserve to die for killing an innocent civilian. There is also the widely held notion that the death penalty sets an example to forewarn others of the punishment that will follow if they go against the law (the law is clearly referenced by Singapore upon arrival to the country).
A psychologically influenced paradigm is held by Japan: “The argument goes that the death penalty reinforces the belief that bad things happen to those who deserve it. This reinforces the contrary belief; that good things will happen to those who are ‘good’.”(http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/capitalpunishment/for_1.shtml)
Due to the complexities of the capital punishment this issue cannot be approached with a unilateral mindset. Prevailing paradigms don’t change because of the influences of contradictory ones but their value in a situation such as this one might. Sometimes, a paradigm can be clearly dominant over the other. Other times, simply the awareness of the existence and validity of other paradigms allows a sound analysis to be conducted. Knowing the difference in paradigms can lead to a better understanding for an individual. We cannot help but think under the influence of one paradigm when approached with an issue, however, to be fair we must account for varying paradigms.
Thank you Sachi; you have outlines some perspectives here on the death penalty and clearly recognized that paradigms play a role. You’ve drawn on some interesting cultural perspectives here yoo.
I am wondering, though, if you are entirely clear on the difference between a paradigm and a belief. A belief may form a paradigm (for example, belief in a just god will influence a paradigm; or belief in no god) but it may also be just a belief. For example – I believe that my car is in the car park.
The way to tell the difference is that a paradigm is a lsens to see the world – that if you use it, you will see things differently.
Now, I think your initial examples “example of a practical paradigm would be the possibility of wrongful conviction” are more about specific facts. The paradigms here would be things like ‘the law is about punishment’ or ‘the law is about rehabilitation’. You can see that adopting these might really change your approach to the death penalty. But ‘the possibility of wrongful conviction’ is in itself not such a lens.
Does that makes sense? Happy to chat on this if it would help 🙂
You are certainly right where you go on to say we need to understand many perspectives, not just one.
thank you!
Thank you Mr.Alchin,
I realise that I am a bit confused. How can we differentiate between when a belief can qualify as a paradigm? Are facts by default considered paradigms?
I tried to categorise the paradigms into emotional, practical, and factual based in this post (quite like the busy city example which shows clearly the difference in views between an introvert and extrovert). Should I be focusing on the crux of the paradigm instead?