I have enormous respect for anyone who turns the other cheek, because it is the hardest and most virtuous thing to do.
I'm a pretty violently secular person, but this is where I agree wholly with Jesus and the Buddha.
Of course, doing nothing is impractical, but acting out of moral necessity in providing a greater social or personal benefit - committing what you know is a necessary evil, like imprisonment or violence in self-defense - is different from taking vengeance, and it is mostly necessary because it is so difficult not to get trapped in the cycle of vengeance. If we were able to abandon it, and promote its abandonment, it would be an excellent thing.
Why do recidivist criminals come up in a discussion about capital punishment?
Capital punishment is reserved, under the US system, for those criminals for whom we would never release back into the community anyway.
So Ketherial's position isn't pro-capital punishment, it's pro-expanding the range of crimes for which people should be executed to include a large portion of people who currently would be placed into rehabilitation programs and later released.
EDIT:
Also the capital punishment calculation from a while ago was pretty inaccurate anyway, the only metric is whether the rate of deterrence of a crime due to capital punishment far outstripped the potential for executing innocent citizens. This has been shown to be staggeringly not true.
I've only read the first 8 pages a while back and I'm not sure exactly where the discussion is currently so I'll respond in regards to the OP:
I wouldn't agree that most states or individuals wish to see criminals punished on the basis of leveling some moral scales but rather, that this analogy is reflective of the tit-for-tat system of reciprocity ingrained genetically into the humans. Retribution upon a perpertrator not only helps with maybe preventing further acts of crime by that particular individual but also serves as a deterrent to would be criminals. As good a prevention of cheats in the system is, the ultimate goal is cooperation because it often yields better results and thus I think it is why we have seen the justice continually move to forgiveness rather than vengeance throughout history.
As to forced rehabilitation; whenever the subject comes up I picture Alex from A Clockwork Orange and find myself horrified at the prospect more so than the death penalty or even life-time incarceration. Which is somewhat ironic because I actually disagree with the conclusion that living beings are unlike a clockwork mechanism; they are just an incredibly complex mechanism, one which I sincerely doubt the studies of psychiatry have yet unraveled the full working of. As such treatments are broad as the explanations of the causes are vague; rehabilitating a thief might work but how much will it change the parts of him/herself not associated with thievery or what if those very same parts are integral to other activities? Now, I can't say when I would find the percentage that this collateral damage occurred acceptable but the idea of it occurring is, to me, as stomach churning as is thinking of a innocent man stuck with in life-time incarceration without parole.
I've only read the first 8 pages a while back and I'm not sure exactly where the discussion is currently so I'll respond in regards to the OP:
I wouldn't agree that most states or individuals wish to see criminals punished on the basis of leveling some moral scales but rather, that this analogy is reflective of the tit-for-tat system of reciprocity ingrained genetically into the humans. Retribution upon a perpertrator not only helps with maybe preventing further acts of crime by that particular individual but also serves as a deterrent to would be criminals. As good a prevention of cheats in the system is, the ultimate goal is cooperation because it often yields better results and thus I think it is why we have seen the justice continually move to forgiveness rather than vengeance throughout history.
As to forced rehabilitation; whenever the subject comes up I picture Alex from A Clockwork Orange and find myself horrified at the prospect more so than the death penalty or even life-time incarceration. Which is somewhat ironic because I actually disagree with the conclusion that living beings are unlike a clockwork mechanism; they are just an incredibly complex mechanism, one which I sincerely doubt the studies of psychiatry have yet unraveled the full working of. As such treatments are broad as the explanations of the causes are vague; rehabilitating a thief might work but how much will it change the parts of him/herself not associated with thievery or what if those very same parts are integral to other activities? Now, I can't say when I would find the percentage that this collateral damage occurred acceptable but the idea of it occurring is, to me, as stomach churning as is thinking of a innocent man stuck with in life-time incarceration without parole.
You're going to need to provide some evidence that capital punishment actually serves as a deterrent, because I've never seen any.
But the science of evidence is only getting better.
Which would be important, if we could expect at some future point to "reveal" this deterrent effect of capital punishment.
But you can't un-execute people, and there's a hell of an irony in the state murdering innocent people to punish them for possibly murdering innocent people.
You're going to need to provide some evidence that capital punishment actually serves as a deterrent, because I've never seen any.
Where did you get an argument for capital punishment in my post? Whatever, I'll bite.
I wouldn't argue that capital punishment serves as a good deterrent, if one at all in today's societies. Communities have grown so large that a would-be criminal in one city isn't going to be impacted by the death-sentence of another criminal, one which he has likely never witnessed the crime and subsequent punishment of in person. Never mind that it's debatable that life-long incarceration is a worse fate than execution.
In smaller communities it works better though, when the punishment for a criminal act is visibly demonstrated to all. Why else would so many of the civilizations in early history enact such strongly punitive law codes?
You're going to need to provide some evidence that capital punishment actually serves as a deterrent, because I've never seen any.
Where did you get an argument for capital punishment in my post? Whatever, I'll bite.
I wouldn't argue that capital punishment serves as a good deterrent, if one at all in today's societies. Communities have grown so large that a would-be criminal in one city isn't going to be impacted by the death-sentence of another criminal, one which he has likely never witnessed the crime and subsequent punishment of in person. Never mind that it's debatable that life-long incarceration is a worse fate than execution.
In smaller communities it works better though, when the punishment for a criminal act is visibly demonstrated to all. Why else would so many of the civilizations in early history enact such strongly punitive law codes?
Because the desire for "kill that guy" when he has wronged you is a pretty basic and primal one, much like how hitting people to make them do what you want seems like a good idea?
When my house was robbed a few years ago my immediate wish was that I could beat the shit out of whoever did it. That doesn't make it actually right.
You're going to need to provide some evidence that capital punishment actually serves as a deterrent, because I've never seen any.
Where did you get an argument for capital punishment in my post? Whatever, I'll bite.
I wouldn't argue that capital punishment serves as a good deterrent, if one at all in today's societies. Communities have grown so large that a would-be criminal in one city isn't going to be impacted by the death-sentence of another criminal, one which he has likely never witnessed the crime and subsequent punishment of in person. Never mind that it's debatable that life-long incarceration is a worse fate than execution.
In smaller communities it works better though, when the punishment for a criminal act is visibly demonstrated to all. Why else would so many of the civilizations in early history enact such strongly punitive law codes?
Because the desire for "kill that guy" when he has wronged you is a pretty basic and primal one, much like how hitting people to make them do what you want seems like a good idea?
When my house was robbed a few years ago my immediate wish was that I could beat the shit out of whoever did it. That doesn't make it actually right.
Whoever said anything about right or wrong? A justice system should facilitate cooperation by removing cheats.
Humans are animals, and I don't mean that in a derogatory sense but rather that our ideas of justice were formed from primal instincts just like other animals (because cheats and criminals turn up in non-human communities as well). Reciprocal Altruism is what I'm talking about here. Where you respect the rights of other citizens because you expect your rights to be respected as well, which is not a big sacrifice for those without criminal compulsions; those who attempt to cheat the system by disregarding your rights learn the costs of doing so, as well as any other cheats who witness the punishment.
Now, I'm not advocating that our current justice system should be based around retribution. It begins to become inefficient and sometimes outright counter-productive in large communities. However these systems are tried and proven, early civilizations enacted their punitive law codes because they worked and it will be hard for humanity to move away from a system that's ingrained into our genes.
The original point I was making is that our ideas of justice don't come from confused interpretations of morality via monetary wealth. As well as that with our limited understanding of human psychology, we shouldn't be rash in completely overhauling the current system in favour of rehabilitation.
The first sentence is correct, but not what I had meant by it. A justice system should be based around facilitating cooperation and removing/preventing cheats.
Both punitive and rehabilitative systems are a means to that end, the former shows more and more problems and inefficiencies as populations increase but it is not a failure in essence. The latter, we are still too limited by our understanding of human psychology and psychiatric treatment to proceed fully with. Nor could we even if did have the understanding since a rapid change from such an intrinsic system as is retribution would be unpopular.
There's no easy solution, moving into a system of rehabilitation will take time.
I don't really see how there can be an argument here. I believe that a universe where people who act immorally suffer for it is, all else being equal, better than a universe where they don't. I think this is a fundamental moral fact, independent of any supposed utilitarian goods to be gained by punishment. If you don't believe this, I can't make an argument for it, no more than I can make an argument that arbitrary suffering is bad. It's just an axiom to be accepted or rejected. I do however disagree with the idea that this belief is somehow more reflective of primitive thinking that the belief that suffering is bad. You can account for either with some story about evolution; indeed, there is no conceivable human trait you couldn't make up an evolutionary story about and claim it comes from some primal instinct.
Because the desire for "kill that guy" when he has wronged you is a pretty basic and primal one, much like how hitting people to make them do what you want seems like a good idea?
When my house was robbed a few years ago my immediate wish was that I could beat the shit out of whoever did it. That doesn't make it actually right.
That's your impulse towards revenge for a wrong done to you personally. It's like saying that because you don't personally like it when you're in pain, the general belief that pain is bad must be based on nothing more than our reflexive aversion towards it. But in fact our interest in seeing justice done generally, like our interest in averting pain generally, is nothing like our interest in getting personal revenge or in preventing ourselves from being hurt.
A) It's not as if the concept of justice is all that clear and unequivocal. Who defines what is immoral? C) Who defines how much suffering is warranted by immoral behaviour?
I believe there is nothing moral about judging immoral behaviour without taking into consideration the context. Who committed this act? To what end? From what motivation? I don't see what conceivable point there is in a simplistic approach to justice (immoral act-->suffering) that completely disregards that the world is not that simple. It's downright meaningless to me to say "A universe where A always causes B is good" if neither A nor B can be clearly defined.
Thirith on
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
A) It's not as if the concept of justice is all that clear and unequivocal. Who defines what is immoral? C) Who defines how much suffering is warranted by immoral behaviour?
I believe there is nothing moral about judging immoral behaviour without taking into consideration the context. Who committed this act? To what end? From what motivation? I don't see what conceivable point there is in a simplistic approach to justice (immoral act-->suffering) that completely disregards that the world is not that simple. It's downright meaningless to me to say "A universe where A always causes B is good" if neither A nor B can be clearly defined.
Skepticism about morality in general is not really a good start if you want to argue that punishment is immoral.
A) It's not as if the concept of justice is all that clear and unequivocal. Who defines what is immoral? C) Who defines how much suffering is warranted by immoral behaviour?
I believe there is nothing moral about judging immoral behaviour without taking into consideration the context. Who committed this act? To what end? From what motivation? I don't see what conceivable point there is in a simplistic approach to justice (immoral act-->suffering) that completely disregards that the world is not that simple. It's downright meaningless to me to say "A universe where A always causes B is good" if neither A nor B can be clearly defined.
Skepticism about morality in general is not really a good start if you want to argue that punishment is immoral.
My scepticism is about individual humans being the arbiters of absolute morality, and about simplistic systems of morality that ignore context. I simply don't believe that morality and justice are that facile.
Thirith on
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
A) It's not as if the concept of justice is all that clear and unequivocal. Who defines what is immoral? C) Who defines how much suffering is warranted by immoral behaviour?
I believe there is nothing moral about judging immoral behaviour without taking into consideration the context. Who committed this act? To what end? From what motivation? I don't see what conceivable point there is in a simplistic approach to justice (immoral act-->suffering) that completely disregards that the world is not that simple. It's downright meaningless to me to say "A universe where A always causes B is good" if neither A nor B can be clearly defined.
Skepticism about morality in general is not really a good start if you want to argue that punishment is immoral.
My scepticism is about individual humans being the arbiters of absolute morality, and about simplistic systems of morality that ignore context. I simply don't believe that morality and justice are that facile.
There's really nothing to be done with this unless you want to bring it out of the clouds of lofty bloviation and give it some more terrestrial form, i.e. an actual position on the punishment of murderers and rapists.
......If you don't believe this, I can't make an argument for it, no more than I can make an argument that arbitrary suffering is bad. It's just an axiom to be accepted or rejected. .....
Why do you think that's not logically justifiable? I've been lurking in this thread thinking that's obvious. Punishment is for deterrence. Obviously different kinds of punishment work better or worse at this, and some people have ideas of what's good deterrence that are untrue. But that's the reason to punish immorality. Not some Pavlovian revenge-urge, or a metaphor-gone-rogue of financial morality. Just that humans act better when they can be punished for wrong-doing.
There's really nothing to be done with this unless you want to bring it out of the clouds of lofty bloviation and give it some more terrestrial form, i.e. an actual position on the punishment of murderers and rapists.
The thing is, I find your position as presented in these posts don't lend themselves to discussion. Basically, what you seem to say is, "People who do bad things should be punished." Great, but what does it mean? In practical terms? What role, if any, does the context of the deed play in your view of justice? What role, if any, does rehabilitation play? Is the latter nice if it happens but always secondary to punishment?
Thirith on
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
......If you don't believe this, I can't make an argument for it, no more than I can make an argument that arbitrary suffering is bad. It's just an axiom to be accepted or rejected. .....
Why do you think that's not logically justifiable? I've been lurking in this thread thinking that's obvious. Punishment is for deterrence. Obviously different kinds of punishment work better or worse at this, and some people have ideas of what's good deterrence that are untrue. But that's the reason to punish immorality. Not some Pavlovian revenge-urge, or a metaphor-gone-rogue of financial morality. Just that humans act better when they can be punished for wrong-doing.
If you accept utilitarianism, then an argument about the utility of punishment logically follows. I don't accept utilitarianism. I think punishment has some moral value independent of its effect on crime rates. I can't argue for this or against this in the sense of establishing a logical necessity. But neither can you make an argument that will logically establish utilitarianism. All systems of morality will eventually come down to a fact or set of facts that cannot be logically established.
The thing is, I find your position as presented in these posts don't lend themselves to discussion. Basically, what you seem to say is, "People who do bad things should be punished." Great, but what does it mean? In practical terms? What role, if any, does the context of the deed play in your view of justice? What role, if any, does rehabilitation play? Is the latter nice if it happens but always secondary to punishment?
Are you looking for some kind of inventory of cases in which I explain what i think should happen in each one? Because that would be a tremendous and unproductive time sink and ultimately wouldn't have anything to do with the basic position. Once you accept the principle of justice, the degree and kind of punishment for any particular transgression, what mitigating factors there may be, and who gets to make the ultimate decision are their own debates.
But as I said, I don't see how one can really have a debate about justice at all, so perhaps that's what we're running into.
@zakkiel: I'm realising that perhaps I misunderstood you earlier. Do you consider any sort of punishment as inflicting suffering on those who have acted immorally? To me suffering is something stronger, more extreme - paying a fine or even a month in prison isn't what I would call suffering. Life in prison (which I may consider justified, although not if the purpose is to inflict suffering), or torture, that's what I understand to be suffering. I.e. your original point to me sounded like "Someone acts in an immoral way, then pain should be inflicted on them."
Thirith on
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
@zakkiel: I'm realising that perhaps I misunderstood you earlier. Do you consider any sort of punishment as inflicting suffering on those who have acted immorally? To me suffering is something stronger, more extreme - paying a fine or even a month in prison isn't what I would call suffering. Life in prison (which I may consider justified, although not if the purpose is to inflict suffering), or torture, that's what I understand to be suffering. I.e. your original point to me sounded like "Someone acts in an immoral way, then pain should be inflicted on them."
Yes, maybe I shouldn't have used "suffering," which suggests an extreme. I mean only the opposite of pleasure.
zakkiel on
Account not recoverable. So long.
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
I think punishment has some moral value independent of its effect on crime rates.
THere's that common eye for an eye/fairness/balancing the scales instinct again.
you just dont know what to call it zak.
In so far that everybody holds it in some way(depending on how they want others to word it, contextual or contextless, etc etc, the devils in the details), I'd say it was a moral truth. I wouldn't go so far as to say that everybody fundamentally agreeing with it because it's just built into us means its automatically acceptable though.
I'd prefer it if we didn't just accept animalistic parts of ourselves if we are smart enough to actually perceive the reason for the moral is the same reason boys like girls: something biologically predetermined. (Remember, over 40% of personality is biological and there are plenty of social phenomenon that qualify as instinctive in so far as they are culturally free)
So even though I agree with that in terms of "it feels right" I disagree with its validity enough to turn it back to neutral. Not saying that I'm making it mean "wrong". I just think that we shouldn't consider them axioms. They should be free to be analysed/critiqued/questioned just like anything else.
It's not enough for someone to say "It's just my axiom" I think, with a social thing like this. World isn't just you, you aren't important enough to hold onto something just because you feel like it. (Hey. This last line is pretty damn communist isn't it. I just realised that. Goddam I'm a red. Where's my bear flaps hat)
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
I think punishment has some moral value independent of its effect on crime rates.
THere's that common eye for an eye/fairness/balancing the scales instinct again.
you just dont know what to call it zak.
In so far that everybody holds it in some way(depending on how they want others to word it, contextual or contextless, etc etc, the devils in the details), I'd say it was a moral truth. I wouldn't go so far as to say that everybody fundamentally agreeing with it because it's just built into us means its automatically acceptable though.
I'd prefer it if we didn't just accept animalistic parts of ourselves if we are smart enough to actually perceive the reason for the moral is the same reason boys like girls: something biologically predetermined. (Remember, over 40% of personality is biological and there are plenty of social phenomenon that qualify as instinctive in so far as they are culturally free)
So even though I agree with that in terms of "it feels right" I disagree with its validity enough to turn it back to neutral. Not saying that I'm making it mean "wrong". I just think that we shouldn't consider them axioms. They should be free to be analysed/critiqued/questioned just like anything else.
It's not enough for someone to say "It's just my axiom" I think, with a social thing like this. World isn't just you, you aren't important enough to hold onto something just because you feel like it. (Hey. This last line is pretty damn communist isn't it. I just realised that. Goddam I'm a red. Where's my bear flaps hat)
Ok, so I can't figure out what's going on here. In one paragraph you say everyone fundamentally agrees with punishment, in another you condescendingly tell me the world isn't just me, and my opinion isn't enough. You say that if everyone holds it it's moral (fallacy of appeal to majority) then say that doesn't automatically make it acceptable. So the idea of punishment is moral, but not necessarily acceptable, and everyone holds it to some extent, but it's also my own personal creed which I shouldn't impose on the rest of the world?
Also, if a behavior is biologically determined, it's not moral. If we are biologically determined, then we can't be moral, and having any sort of debate over the right thing to do is pointless.
zakkiel on
Account not recoverable. So long.
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
I think punishment has some moral value independent of its effect on crime rates.
THere's that common eye for an eye/fairness/balancing the scales instinct again.
you just dont know what to call it zak.
In so far that everybody holds it in some way(depending on how they want others to word it, contextual or contextless, etc etc, the devils in the details), I'd say it was a moral truth. I wouldn't go so far as to say that everybody fundamentally agreeing with it because it's just built into us means its automatically acceptable though.
I'd prefer it if we didn't just accept animalistic parts of ourselves if we are smart enough to actually perceive the reason for the moral is the same reason boys like girls: something biologically predetermined. (Remember, over 40% of personality is biological and there are plenty of social phenomenon that qualify as instinctive in so far as they are culturally free)
So even though I agree with that in terms of "it feels right" I disagree with its validity enough to turn it back to neutral. Not saying that I'm making it mean "wrong". I just think that we shouldn't consider them axioms. They should be free to be analysed/critiqued/questioned just like anything else.
It's not enough for someone to say "It's just my axiom" I think, with a social thing like this. World isn't just you, you aren't important enough to hold onto something just because you feel like it. (Hey. This last line is pretty damn communist isn't it. I just realised that. Goddam I'm a red. Where's my bear flaps hat)
Ok, so I can't figure out what's going on here. In one paragraph you say everyone fundamentally agrees with punishment, in another you condescendingly tell me the world isn't just me, and my opinion isn't enough.
That you is a general you, not just Zak. Sorry. It includes me as well and everybody. It was a general purpose variable you where you = whoever is currently reading the post. My bad.
You say that if everyone holds it it's moral (fallacy of appeal to majority) then say that doesn't automatically make it acceptable.
ARe you arguing many morals that are held in society aren't at their core fallacies of appeal to majority? (Not theoretical moral frameworks, but ones actually upheld right now, in our society.) My first line was an acknowledgement that this is the case. It doesn't make it acceptable because it is a fallacy of appeal to majority.
So the idea of punishment is moral, but not necessarily acceptable, and everyone holds it to some extent, but it's also my own personal creed which I shouldn't impose on the rest of the world?
Moral doesn't mean acceptable. It can be used that way, but I'm using it as a noun here. Not this action is moral, but that thing is a moral.
If it makes it easier just leave it as instinct. I thought I was translating it into morality speech to make it easier, but I don't have a good grounding in the philisophical terminology used normally so I'm guessing I cocked it up.
Also, if a behavior is biologically determined, it's not moral. If we are biologically determined, then we can't be moral, and having any sort of debate over the right thing to do is pointless.
Perhaps I shouldn't have used determined since you appear to equate that to robotic programming. How about: predisposed.
We are heavily predisposed. That doesn't mean we must.
Is this clearer? I know I'm bad with words sometimes.
Because I'm bad with words, it's a good bet that condescending at the end of an otherwise reasonable post is because I can't figure out a better way to do it. I didn't mean to just insult it was meant to be a logical point.
So to sum up: "Everybody is heavily predisposed to hold it, many morals currently exist where when this is the case they become moral (ignoring philosophy for what actually happens please), this doesn't mean it's acceptable, and so everybody should try to question/critique it and not try to hold it as axiomatic"
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
I don't understand people talking about punishment for punishments sake.
That doesn't make sense. Punishment is always about deterrence, no matter what form it takes. The urge to beat the crap out of some guys who rob my house isn't based on the urge to beat the crap out of them, it's based on the urge to send a message to them and everyone else that my house is not to be fucked with.
electricitylikesme on
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited May 2009
It's highly doubtful punishment is reliant upon only one instinct/process/disposition etc, I should add.
I don't mean to insinuate that only fairness is ever the reason. I just think it's a really big one in a lot of the otherwise passive "just because" logics being used.
Aggressive-territorial reasons would obviously be another one.
I'm sure someone looking through this thread could see more.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
"I don't understand people talking about punishment for punishments sake.
That doesn't make sense. Punishment is always about deterrence, no matter what form it takes. The urge to beat the crap out of some guys who rob my house isn't based on the urge to beat the crap out of them, it's based on the urge to send a message to them and everyone else that my house is not to be fucked with."
---> Sure in the case of Robbery and lesser crimes i'd agree. But...and perhaps i'm naive here... I think those are the crimes that deterrent works. I find it hard to believe that a guy would think 'oh hey i'd totally rape that chick but my buddy got arrested for that... better let it lie'
But maybe i just have a hard time imagining 'hey i'd totally rape that chick' to begin with, its just a position so alien to me.
But I do think in terms of those crimes are just punishment for punishments sake, and deservedly so.
"I don't understand people talking about punishment for punishments sake.
That doesn't make sense. Punishment is always about deterrence, no matter what form it takes. The urge to beat the crap out of some guys who rob my house isn't based on the urge to beat the crap out of them, it's based on the urge to send a message to them and everyone else that my house is not to be fucked with."
---> Sure in the case of Robbery and lesser crimes i'd agree. But...and perhaps i'm naive here... I think those are the crimes that deterrent works. I find it hard to believe that a guy would think 'oh hey i'd totally rape that chick but my buddy got arrested for that... better let it lie'
But maybe i just have a hard time imagining 'hey i'd totally rape that chick' to begin with, its just a position so alien to me.
But I do think in terms of those crimes are just punishment for punishments sake, and deservedly so.
So do you think that if there were no punishment for things like rape and murder, that the rates of both of those crimes wouldn't spike up? I have a hard time believing that there's no deterrence here. I would be willing to bet that if there wasn't a serious punishment for murder and rape, there would be more murders and rapes than there are now.
I don't understand people talking about punishment for punishments sake.
That doesn't make sense. Punishment is always about deterrence, no matter what form it takes. The urge to beat the crap out of some guys who rob my house isn't based on the urge to beat the crap out of them, it's based on the urge to send a message to them and everyone else that my house is not to be fucked with.
I think that this is only true if you don't believe in the notion of Justice with a capital J. Which I think a lot of people do.
I don't understand people talking about punishment for punishments sake.
That doesn't make sense. Punishment is always about deterrence, no matter what form it takes. The urge to beat the crap out of some guys who rob my house isn't based on the urge to beat the crap out of them, it's based on the urge to send a message to them and everyone else that my house is not to be fucked with.
I think you should read my reply to your post earlier. As I said there, the urge to beat the crap out the guys who came to rob your house has nothing to do with justice. The urge to stop pain to you personally has nothing to do with compassion. No sentiment concerning only what people do to you personally can be moral, so an example of your feelings about what happens to you personally doesn't illuminate the issue at all.
So far as whether the sole moral value of punishment is deterrence, as I said that seems obviously wrong to me, but there is no logical argument to have over it. However, suppose we accept that this is true - that there is no moral value served by punishing people in itself, but only in its effect on the crime rate. Then the criminals so punished are essentially victims subjected to imprisonment and death only to improve the happiness of the majority. They are scapegoats in the original sense of the term. The whole institution of punishment is as rotten as slavery was, and having acknowledged that, why should we be so scrupulously and expensively obsessed with proving guilt? Why should we have so many appeals and interminable reexaminations of evidence? Surely the cause of lowering crime would be better served if criminals did not think they had such a high chance of getting off, or that their punishment could be so long deferred. And huge amounts of money could be saved. A few more innocents would get punished for crimes they didn't commit, but since there is no justice at stake, we have only to ask whether this increase at the margin would impact overall public happiness positively or negatively, and it seems clear that in many areas the answer is the former.
This is of course only one of the umpteen million problems with utilitarianism.
We have that because we are very concerned with the state punishing the wrong people. The state has a very high bar to pass before it can violate the rights to life and liberty.
edit: this is en entirely different argument from the argument over what it is moral or useful for the state to do, once it has passed that bar.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
We have that because we are very concerned with the state punishing the wrong people. The state has a very high bar to pass before it can violate the rights to life and liberty.
Yes, and the question is, why? To which the answer is either considerations of justice or no considerations at all.
edit: this is en entirely different argument from the argument over what it is moral or useful for the state to do, once it has passed that bar.
No, this is exactly the argument. The justification for punishment will determine the standards applied for punishment.
The justification for punishment will determine the standards applied for punishment.
Not enough lime in the world.
"Punishment" is a broad term, with a lot of variations under its umbrella. The particular types of punishment that we use need to fit the reasons why we are using punishment.
i respect a man who hurts those who have hurt him far more than one who does nothing. i would want such a man as my friend. turn the other cheek is dandy to talk about, but i dont think anyone actually really thinks we should subscribe to it.
i dont see why there needs to be any backpedaling. it's quite clear that i would respect you more if you were willing to avenge your raped sister than if you just turned the other cheek.
that doesnt mean i condone personal revenge. i accept that it's detrimental to society in the end. but i do not at all respect a person who thinks turn the other cheek is an acceptable attitude when friends and family have been injured or killed.
also, please dont edit my posts to make it sound like im contradicting myself. it's dishonest and below you.
i respect a man who hurts those who have hurt him far more than one who does nothing. i would want such a man as my friend. turn the other cheek is dandy to talk about, but i dont think anyone actually really thinks we should subscribe to it.
after someone has fired a explosive device into at a civilian crowd in israel, i wonder what choice you would make. do you think the israeli government is petty and childish? i do not bring this up to inflame you and i hope you do not take offense. i simply wonder how consistently you apply your ideology.
Just to check: you believe in this philosophy as an attorney?
So if, say, one of the people who signed a contract with one of your clients felt like they got screwed by it, you'd respect them for raping your family?
I'm just checking.
i have no idea what the point of your looney tunes scenario is. do you actually, seriously think your stupid hypothetical would contribute something to the conversation if i were to answer it?
i mean, in your mind, you really think a guy who is advocating fairness above all things, is really going to say, "yes, thanatos, breach of contract and rape are morally equivalent"?
Posts
I'm a pretty violently secular person, but this is where I agree wholly with Jesus and the Buddha.
Of course, doing nothing is impractical, but acting out of moral necessity in providing a greater social or personal benefit - committing what you know is a necessary evil, like imprisonment or violence in self-defense - is different from taking vengeance, and it is mostly necessary because it is so difficult not to get trapped in the cycle of vengeance. If we were able to abandon it, and promote its abandonment, it would be an excellent thing.
Capital punishment is reserved, under the US system, for those criminals for whom we would never release back into the community anyway.
So Ketherial's position isn't pro-capital punishment, it's pro-expanding the range of crimes for which people should be executed to include a large portion of people who currently would be placed into rehabilitation programs and later released.
EDIT:
Also the capital punishment calculation from a while ago was pretty inaccurate anyway, the only metric is whether the rate of deterrence of a crime due to capital punishment far outstripped the potential for executing innocent citizens. This has been shown to be staggeringly not true.
I wouldn't agree that most states or individuals wish to see criminals punished on the basis of leveling some moral scales but rather, that this analogy is reflective of the tit-for-tat system of reciprocity ingrained genetically into the humans. Retribution upon a perpertrator not only helps with maybe preventing further acts of crime by that particular individual but also serves as a deterrent to would be criminals. As good a prevention of cheats in the system is, the ultimate goal is cooperation because it often yields better results and thus I think it is why we have seen the justice continually move to forgiveness rather than vengeance throughout history.
As to forced rehabilitation; whenever the subject comes up I picture Alex from A Clockwork Orange and find myself horrified at the prospect more so than the death penalty or even life-time incarceration. Which is somewhat ironic because I actually disagree with the conclusion that living beings are unlike a clockwork mechanism; they are just an incredibly complex mechanism, one which I sincerely doubt the studies of psychiatry have yet unraveled the full working of. As such treatments are broad as the explanations of the causes are vague; rehabilitating a thief might work but how much will it change the parts of him/herself not associated with thievery or what if those very same parts are integral to other activities? Now, I can't say when I would find the percentage that this collateral damage occurred acceptable but the idea of it occurring is, to me, as stomach churning as is thinking of a innocent man stuck with in life-time incarceration without parole.
But you can't un-execute people, and there's a hell of an irony in the state murdering innocent people to punish them for possibly murdering innocent people.
Where did you get an argument for capital punishment in my post? Whatever, I'll bite.
I wouldn't argue that capital punishment serves as a good deterrent, if one at all in today's societies. Communities have grown so large that a would-be criminal in one city isn't going to be impacted by the death-sentence of another criminal, one which he has likely never witnessed the crime and subsequent punishment of in person. Never mind that it's debatable that life-long incarceration is a worse fate than execution.
In smaller communities it works better though, when the punishment for a criminal act is visibly demonstrated to all. Why else would so many of the civilizations in early history enact such strongly punitive law codes?
When my house was robbed a few years ago my immediate wish was that I could beat the shit out of whoever did it. That doesn't make it actually right.
Whoever said anything about right or wrong? A justice system should facilitate cooperation by removing cheats.
Humans are animals, and I don't mean that in a derogatory sense but rather that our ideas of justice were formed from primal instincts just like other animals (because cheats and criminals turn up in non-human communities as well).
Reciprocal Altruism is what I'm talking about here. Where you respect the rights of other citizens because you expect your rights to be respected as well, which is not a big sacrifice for those without criminal compulsions; those who attempt to cheat the system by disregarding your rights learn the costs of doing so, as well as any other cheats who witness the punishment.
Now, I'm not advocating that our current justice system should be based around retribution. It begins to become inefficient and sometimes outright counter-productive in large communities. However these systems are tried and proven, early civilizations enacted their punitive law codes because they worked and it will be hard for humanity to move away from a system that's ingrained into our genes.
The original point I was making is that our ideas of justice don't come from confused interpretations of morality via monetary wealth. As well as that with our limited understanding of human psychology, we shouldn't be rash in completely overhauling the current system in favour of rehabilitation.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
l2read
how then, am I to understand these two sentences
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
The first sentence is correct, but not what I had meant by it. A justice system should be based around facilitating cooperation and removing/preventing cheats.
Both punitive and rehabilitative systems are a means to that end, the former shows more and more problems and inefficiencies as populations increase but it is not a failure in essence. The latter, we are still too limited by our understanding of human psychology and psychiatric treatment to proceed fully with. Nor could we even if did have the understanding since a rapid change from such an intrinsic system as is retribution would be unpopular.
There's no easy solution, moving into a system of rehabilitation will take time.
That's your impulse towards revenge for a wrong done to you personally. It's like saying that because you don't personally like it when you're in pain, the general belief that pain is bad must be based on nothing more than our reflexive aversion towards it. But in fact our interest in seeing justice done generally, like our interest in averting pain generally, is nothing like our interest in getting personal revenge or in preventing ourselves from being hurt.
I believe there is nothing moral about judging immoral behaviour without taking into consideration the context. Who committed this act? To what end? From what motivation? I don't see what conceivable point there is in a simplistic approach to justice (immoral act-->suffering) that completely disregards that the world is not that simple. It's downright meaningless to me to say "A universe where A always causes B is good" if neither A nor B can be clearly defined.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Skepticism about morality in general is not really a good start if you want to argue that punishment is immoral.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
There's really nothing to be done with this unless you want to bring it out of the clouds of lofty bloviation and give it some more terrestrial form, i.e. an actual position on the punishment of murderers and rapists.
Why do you think that's not logically justifiable? I've been lurking in this thread thinking that's obvious. Punishment is for deterrence. Obviously different kinds of punishment work better or worse at this, and some people have ideas of what's good deterrence that are untrue. But that's the reason to punish immorality. Not some Pavlovian revenge-urge, or a metaphor-gone-rogue of financial morality. Just that humans act better when they can be punished for wrong-doing.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
If you accept utilitarianism, then an argument about the utility of punishment logically follows. I don't accept utilitarianism. I think punishment has some moral value independent of its effect on crime rates. I can't argue for this or against this in the sense of establishing a logical necessity. But neither can you make an argument that will logically establish utilitarianism. All systems of morality will eventually come down to a fact or set of facts that cannot be logically established.
Are you looking for some kind of inventory of cases in which I explain what i think should happen in each one? Because that would be a tremendous and unproductive time sink and ultimately wouldn't have anything to do with the basic position. Once you accept the principle of justice, the degree and kind of punishment for any particular transgression, what mitigating factors there may be, and who gets to make the ultimate decision are their own debates.
But as I said, I don't see how one can really have a debate about justice at all, so perhaps that's what we're running into.
Wake me up when we comes to a unanimous decision.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Yes, maybe I shouldn't have used "suffering," which suggests an extreme. I mean only the opposite of pleasure.
THere's that common eye for an eye/fairness/balancing the scales instinct again.
you just dont know what to call it zak.
In so far that everybody holds it in some way(depending on how they want others to word it, contextual or contextless, etc etc, the devils in the details), I'd say it was a moral truth. I wouldn't go so far as to say that everybody fundamentally agreeing with it because it's just built into us means its automatically acceptable though.
I'd prefer it if we didn't just accept animalistic parts of ourselves if we are smart enough to actually perceive the reason for the moral is the same reason boys like girls: something biologically predetermined. (Remember, over 40% of personality is biological and there are plenty of social phenomenon that qualify as instinctive in so far as they are culturally free)
So even though I agree with that in terms of "it feels right" I disagree with its validity enough to turn it back to neutral. Not saying that I'm making it mean "wrong". I just think that we shouldn't consider them axioms. They should be free to be analysed/critiqued/questioned just like anything else.
It's not enough for someone to say "It's just my axiom" I think, with a social thing like this. World isn't just you, you aren't important enough to hold onto something just because you feel like it. (Hey. This last line is pretty damn communist isn't it. I just realised that. Goddam I'm a red. Where's my bear flaps hat)
Ok, so I can't figure out what's going on here. In one paragraph you say everyone fundamentally agrees with punishment, in another you condescendingly tell me the world isn't just me, and my opinion isn't enough. You say that if everyone holds it it's moral (fallacy of appeal to majority) then say that doesn't automatically make it acceptable. So the idea of punishment is moral, but not necessarily acceptable, and everyone holds it to some extent, but it's also my own personal creed which I shouldn't impose on the rest of the world?
Also, if a behavior is biologically determined, it's not moral. If we are biologically determined, then we can't be moral, and having any sort of debate over the right thing to do is pointless.
ARe you arguing many morals that are held in society aren't at their core fallacies of appeal to majority? (Not theoretical moral frameworks, but ones actually upheld right now, in our society.) My first line was an acknowledgement that this is the case. It doesn't make it acceptable because it is a fallacy of appeal to majority.
Moral doesn't mean acceptable. It can be used that way, but I'm using it as a noun here. Not this action is moral, but that thing is a moral.
If it makes it easier just leave it as instinct. I thought I was translating it into morality speech to make it easier, but I don't have a good grounding in the philisophical terminology used normally so I'm guessing I cocked it up.
Perhaps I shouldn't have used determined since you appear to equate that to robotic programming. How about: predisposed.
We are heavily predisposed. That doesn't mean we must.
Is this clearer? I know I'm bad with words sometimes.
Because I'm bad with words, it's a good bet that condescending at the end of an otherwise reasonable post is because I can't figure out a better way to do it. I didn't mean to just insult it was meant to be a logical point.
So to sum up: "Everybody is heavily predisposed to hold it, many morals currently exist where when this is the case they become moral (ignoring philosophy for what actually happens please), this doesn't mean it's acceptable, and so everybody should try to question/critique it and not try to hold it as axiomatic"
That doesn't make sense. Punishment is always about deterrence, no matter what form it takes. The urge to beat the crap out of some guys who rob my house isn't based on the urge to beat the crap out of them, it's based on the urge to send a message to them and everyone else that my house is not to be fucked with.
I don't mean to insinuate that only fairness is ever the reason. I just think it's a really big one in a lot of the otherwise passive "just because" logics being used.
Aggressive-territorial reasons would obviously be another one.
I'm sure someone looking through this thread could see more.
That doesn't make sense. Punishment is always about deterrence, no matter what form it takes. The urge to beat the crap out of some guys who rob my house isn't based on the urge to beat the crap out of them, it's based on the urge to send a message to them and everyone else that my house is not to be fucked with."
---> Sure in the case of Robbery and lesser crimes i'd agree. But...and perhaps i'm naive here... I think those are the crimes that deterrent works. I find it hard to believe that a guy would think 'oh hey i'd totally rape that chick but my buddy got arrested for that... better let it lie'
But maybe i just have a hard time imagining 'hey i'd totally rape that chick' to begin with, its just a position so alien to me.
But I do think in terms of those crimes are just punishment for punishments sake, and deservedly so.
So do you think that if there were no punishment for things like rape and murder, that the rates of both of those crimes wouldn't spike up? I have a hard time believing that there's no deterrence here. I would be willing to bet that if there wasn't a serious punishment for murder and rape, there would be more murders and rapes than there are now.
My Let's Play Channel: https://youtube.com/channel/UC2go70QLfwGq-hW4nvUqmog
I think that this is only true if you don't believe in the notion of Justice with a capital J. Which I think a lot of people do.
I think you should read my reply to your post earlier. As I said there, the urge to beat the crap out the guys who came to rob your house has nothing to do with justice. The urge to stop pain to you personally has nothing to do with compassion. No sentiment concerning only what people do to you personally can be moral, so an example of your feelings about what happens to you personally doesn't illuminate the issue at all.
So far as whether the sole moral value of punishment is deterrence, as I said that seems obviously wrong to me, but there is no logical argument to have over it. However, suppose we accept that this is true - that there is no moral value served by punishing people in itself, but only in its effect on the crime rate. Then the criminals so punished are essentially victims subjected to imprisonment and death only to improve the happiness of the majority. They are scapegoats in the original sense of the term. The whole institution of punishment is as rotten as slavery was, and having acknowledged that, why should we be so scrupulously and expensively obsessed with proving guilt? Why should we have so many appeals and interminable reexaminations of evidence? Surely the cause of lowering crime would be better served if criminals did not think they had such a high chance of getting off, or that their punishment could be so long deferred. And huge amounts of money could be saved. A few more innocents would get punished for crimes they didn't commit, but since there is no justice at stake, we have only to ask whether this increase at the margin would impact overall public happiness positively or negatively, and it seems clear that in many areas the answer is the former.
This is of course only one of the umpteen million problems with utilitarianism.
edit: this is en entirely different argument from the argument over what it is moral or useful for the state to do, once it has passed that bar.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
No, this is exactly the argument. The justification for punishment will determine the standards applied for punishment.
Not enough lime in the world.
"Punishment" is a broad term, with a lot of variations under its umbrella. The particular types of punishment that we use need to fit the reasons why we are using punishment.
i dont see why there needs to be any backpedaling. it's quite clear that i would respect you more if you were willing to avenge your raped sister than if you just turned the other cheek.
that doesnt mean i condone personal revenge. i accept that it's detrimental to society in the end. but i do not at all respect a person who thinks turn the other cheek is an acceptable attitude when friends and family have been injured or killed.
also, please dont edit my posts to make it sound like im contradicting myself. it's dishonest and below you.
i have no idea what the point of your looney tunes scenario is. do you actually, seriously think your stupid hypothetical would contribute something to the conversation if i were to answer it?
i mean, in your mind, you really think a guy who is advocating fairness above all things, is really going to say, "yes, thanatos, breach of contract and rape are morally equivalent"?
this is the best you've got for me? really?