We are living together in this society, so we should think about the common good. A person that do harm to a member of our society is doing harm to all members, we should contribute to ban it to avoid its harm, and to live in security. Harm can be done by mistake I agree, but what a person do on purpose is judged and this person must be eliminated ,it's butter to lose one person or to loose thousands that may be harmed
Yes, we should ban everyone harmful to society. Even though this may seem unfeasible, if we do this, we are protecting future generations from these people and their future offspring who are dangerous to society. It will allow our soicety to grow in the right direction, and that will create a better tomorrow.
Do you mean sentence to death, deport, imprison, send off to a deserted island? Also define "harmful." Do you mean a criminal, a murderer, a rapist? Or do you mean someone who society doesn't seem fit to exist? Your question is a little vague, so I went ahead and voted no.
If you mean should we sentence a murderer or a rapist to death, then I would've voted yes. But if you mean seclude someone society doesn't agree with...Well let's just say that's exactly why people separate themselves from society, because society is evil and retarded. Have you ever read One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, or maybe 1984? These books are great examples of this theory.
I'd argue that at some point, any person may harm society even if on a minimal level. Also, you can be harmful without the intent to do so, some people may be susceptible to manipulation or some other condition be it mental or physiological. In truth, we all have the potential to be the "bad guy." Most people can only be good as the circumstances allow him to be.
Every person on the planet is in some way harmful to the society, weather its a criminal, a person who doesnt recycle, even someone who leaves the water running or the TV on. Everyone has an effect on our society, therefore everyone can make a negative effect on our society.
It's one of Issac Newton's laws: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
What are your own moral obligations to help others; what are the limits of your obligation? ... Poverty, malnutrition, and poor health are common in many parts of the ... Should you do more if someone else isn't doing her part? Implicit in much of the critique of our income divide is the assumption that inequality per se is inherently unjust, and therefore that the gap between rich and poor is as well. That perceived injustice in turn spurs support for redistributionist policies that are intended to make levels of prosperity more equal across society.
"Harmful" is too broad and subject to a great deal of interpretation. Saying we should ban any person who is harmful to society opens the door to granting authorities the right to determine who is and is not harmful and given human nature they will do this according to their own self-interests.
I believe that capital punishment is extremely wrong and very outdated in the twenty first century but I do believe in a justice system in which punishments of incarceration for serious crimes are put into places.
Minor and irrelevant crimes should be punished via community service, compulsory education or forced rehabilitation.
Not everyone is capable of making good choices, and some people need a lot of support in making good choices. These people are human too and they deserve human rights and support from a society to live and to function.
If you banned all the harmful people, where would they go, what would they do and who would be left?
Everyone is in one way or another "harmful" to society. You would have to ban people who drink, people who smoke, people who are crappy drivers, people who swear, rude people, people who disagree with societal norms, old people, bratty kids, people who are angered easily, people who waste things, poor people, uneducated people, people who don't recycle, people who litter, people with potentially dangerous pets, homeless people, people who watch pornographic, people with guns, gay people, infertile people (they can't give birth to new citizens), unemployed people, stupid people, mentally ill people, disabled people, racists, sexist, ageists, religious people, and people who threaten to ban people from society for stupid reasons.
Your question is a bit broad and ambiguous. Based on this, No, this is not reasonable assuming ban means forcing the out of the country. If it means ban by death as the noose suggests, again I say no, this is over the top unreasonable. How should "harmful to society be defined. Is a person who drives 65 in a 45 mph speed zone harmful to society? If ban simply means prison, then the obvious answer is, we already do this at varying degrees.