What ought to be the role of law enforcement?

I.e. prevent crime, punish wrong doers, etc.

What ought the role of government be?
Explanation is unnecessary, short answer is preferable please.

Why does one want to be moral?
To go to heaven?
To be the best person they can?
To ensure the survival of the bloodline?
No need for explanations here, just why.

I am unable to rationally doubt X, does that mean I believe X?

When we take a subjective stance towards truth to its logical extream, that creates an epistemological isolation so great it causes any discussion about some form of knowledge to become absurd and only serves to alienate individuals from the rest of society.

"Well that may be true for you, but that's not true for me."

The previous statement demonstrates where I'm going in its simplest form. The implication here is whatever input the individual being told the line is of no worth to the person telling said line because their subjective experiences are different enough to create their own reality. If that is the case, then there was never anything to talk about, not just about this specific ambiguous subject, but for all topics, because no one experiences anything exactly the same as others.

The subjective reality line of reasoning does not aid in the quest for knowledge we philosophers pursue; it serves the opposite: anti-knowledge.

Here, we arrive at epistemological nihilism, or epistemological relativism to put a positive spin on it. Despite relativism arguing for a subjective grounding in things, the stance is so flimsy it falls apart into nothingness. Subjectivity assumes agency guiding the very nature of reality, so who is this agent? If it is my subjective experience, am I guiding the nature of reality? The answer here can be one of two answers: yes or no. If it is not me, then that means an external guidance of reality must exist and would that not be objective reality? If it is yes, however, then I decide what is true for myself. However, I change over time, as we all do, and what I decide is true for me today will be different for me tomorrow. Under the construction of reality put forth here, the truth has no meaning. Things can be true one second and false the next; this is nihilism.

At the point of this epistemological nihilism, any discussion becomes absurd due to the meaninglessness of it. Why enter the conversation when there is no grounding meaning to come out o fit ever? if there is nothing to discuss, then there is nothing to connect with others over, because that too has no meaning. We have become isolated from others, which is the very definition of alienation. How can we ever enter a debate without it ever ending in both sides rightfully saying "Well, your sources are bunked and your an idiot for believing such things."

"CNN gives out baseless speculations that result in fake news. Don't watch them."
"Fox News is sponsored by greedy corporatists who only care about their bank accounts. Don't watch them."
"Mainstream News channels are all Big Brother propaganda tools trying to brainwash society. Don't watch them"
"Lowkey News websites are extremists platforms deliberately trying to create a schism in the country. Don't watch them."

Is it no wounder we're at each other's throats? Everyone seems to be more interested in serving their own narrative than accomplishing real thoughtful conversation, but why blame them? Isn't that just the way how it is? Are we not all entitled to our subjective realites?

Maybe we are not the ones who pick our truths. It's doesn't have to be capital "T" Truth, but maybe our subjective experience can overlap with others. If we step away from our expectations, egos, and bias in much the same way the scientific method functions it what they call an objective disposition, then maybe we can come to a real concensous of reality.

If you don't have free will, then how do you prove that you exist?

I don't mean your body, I mean the "I," "my," or "me" you refer to when you talk about your self. Can you prove that if we assume free will doesn't exist?

I was having a chat with an old professor of mine and he was working out this idea he putting in his book.

He tells me, from what I can remember, concerning value, that we strive for an ultimate standard of life for ourselves and this strife is without meaning.

Now, I know he knows about Hiedigar's concept of anxiety as stress without a source. I assume that my professor is coming from an existential angle. I ask him if is like that and he tells me "no, I'm not focusing on a nihilist approch. Instead I'm coming from a dialectic approch."

I remember then that my professor was big on Hegal, and that's what he was probably going after. However after thinking about for some time, I cannot come up with any point where Hegal or any facet of a dialectical approach my deal with meaninglessness.

My buddy and I recently got into an argument over the Norway prison system and Anders Behring Breivik.

To get ya'll up to speed, the Norway prison system has a prevention focus over a punishment focus, meaning that their focus is not on punishing wrong doers for their actions, but rather changing their thought process to become more align with "correct" behavior. As a result of this, Norway has among the lowest repeat criminal offenders of any nation.

On July 22nd 2011, Anders Behring Breivik committed a politically driven mass murder in Norway, killing 77 people in total. He was sentence to 21 years in prison where he will undergo the prevention detention that is established in the country.

My friend and I are both critics of the US prison system in that it fosters criminal activity rather than prevents it, and we both agree that it is probably because many US prisons are privately run, profit driven, and therefor not interested in preventing future criminal activity. We also both agree that Norway's prison system ought to be a model for other nations, especially the US, because it is better for the well being for the society.

Where we differ is how Norway is handling Breivik. We both agree that Breivik did horrible things and deserves much worse than what he was sentenced. However, My buddy believe he should be sentence for life for his actions so he can reflect on the pain he caused to the families he destroyed. I too believe Breivik is scum and he doesn't deserve what he got, but I still think that the prison system in Norway will do us all a greater good. I view it as an ultimate test for Norway where my friend thinks that he should rot in jail.

Wisecrack put up this video below about the same philosophical concept but instead looks at the 2017 Wonder Woman movie. They contrast the villain Ares and Wonder Woman's ethical views. I find that my friend would agree with Ares's ethical views and that I agree more with Wonder Woman's ethical views at least on this case on Breivik. (though I feel as though even Diana would give Breivik the chair.)

So how about you guys, when it comes to Breivik's case, are you a Diana or Ares?