6 ms·

There's a sort of disconnect going on in our sense of justice between gaining explanatory power to describe why a person did something, and that person's culpab

There's a sort of disconnect going on in our sense of justice between gaining explanatory power to describe why a person did something, and that person's culpability. We seem to think if we can understand why they behaved in such a way (for instance, they were victims themselves, they had a mental disorder, etc.) they must merit compassion. The converse is perhaps more troublesome: if we can't understand how someone could have done that thing, it is somehow more heinous. My view is that this dynamic in our collective compassion does not help us accomplish justice. It seems that to pursue justice we must believe in agency of the individual. Agency to, no matter what their circumstances, make the right choices. As soon as we begin to weigh our explanatory power over individual agency we lose justice. Am I happy this man met justice? No, it's deeply sad and points to an irrevocable brokenness in humankind. Was it deserved? Yes. It was.

ip26 6y ago
I think the short summary is we are coming to understand circumstances where an individual has lost their agency. In which cases the nature of justice changes. if we can't understand how someone could have done that thing... If we are not aware of a reason they did not posses agency, then we must assume they still had it.
- hntrader 6y ago
  The big problem with this is that our recognition that there's extenuating circumstances (e.g a brain tumour in the prefrontal cortex) says more about our capacity to recognise such situations than it does about actual differences in agency between individuals. For example, we might say that a serial killer who was born into a life of wealth and advantage and has no macroscopic brain damage has more agency than the individual with a large brain tumour. But this killer is also very much a slave to their brain in the same way as the tumour individual. They were gifted with psychopathy and an inability to feel remorse, which will undoubtedly come down to concrete brain states that differ in a material respect to non-psychopaths. Just because we can't see any obvious macroscopic markers of this says more about our knowledge limitations than it does about relative levels of agency. Going further, we're all slaves to determinisic or stochastic physics playing out in our brains and environment, and our agency is just a useful fiction. The justice system should be premised on pragmatic concepts of deterrence, rehabilitation, protecting society, etc, and not on fantasy notions that person A had more agency than person B.
  - Retric 6y ago
    This assumes you define a person as a constant irrespective of everything else. In effect an 8 year olds must therefore be judged as harshly as anyone else. It’s a consistent standpoint, but justice isn’t about punishment. It’s a belief that the world despite all evidence to the contrary should be fair. As such people’s internal thought process is inherently part of the judgement process, the same action with different causes is judged differently. You’re for example allowed to break some rules in an emergency therefore belief that something is an emergency is relevant. Punching someone doing a jump scare because you think their a threat is perfectly legal.
    - hntrader 6y ago
      I believe circumstance should be taken into account, but not for the purposes of assigning agency, which is a fantasy concept. It should inform the probability of recidivism, the chances that rehabilitation will work, etc, and therefore inform what type and duration of sentence/treatment is appropriate for a given case. To your example, belief that something is an emergency means that P(recidivism) is effectively the same as if they hadn't committed the action, which is the real reason why there shouldn't be any sentence given to that individual.
  - RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
    > Going further, we're all slaves to determinisic or stochastic physics playing out in our brains and environment, and our agency is just a useful fiction. >The justice system should be premised on pragmatic concepts of deterrence, rehabilitation, protecting society, etc, and not on fantasy notions that person A had more agency than person B. Without a concept of agency it is pointless to talk about “justice”. At the very least, by advocating a notion of justice, you are saying that members of society as a whole have agency to implement that concept of justice. If we all have no agency, how is a feeling that we should immediately execute all criminals unjust?
    - hntrader 6y ago
      I used the term "justice system" because that's what everyone calls it. If we want to rename it to something else, that's fine with me.
tschwimmer 6y ago
I think this is conditional, not universal. If someone did a crime for greed, or because they are a "bad person" who is seemingly rational but simply enjoys hurting people, I think you'll find that most people are not sympathetic.

ip26 6y ago

I think the short summary is we are coming to understand circumstances where an individual has lost their agency. In which cases the nature of justice changes. if we can't understand how someone could have done that thing... If we are not aware of a reason they did not posses agency, then we must assume they still had it.

hntrader 6y ago
The big problem with this is that our recognition that there's extenuating circumstances (e.g a brain tumour in the prefrontal cortex) says more about our capacity to recognise such situations than it does about actual differences in agency between individuals. For example, we might say that a serial killer who was born into a life of wealth and advantage and has no macroscopic brain damage has more agency than the individual with a large brain tumour. But this killer is also very much a slave to their brain in the same way as the tumour individual. They were gifted with psychopathy and an inability to feel remorse, which will undoubtedly come down to concrete brain states that differ in a material respect to non-psychopaths. Just because we can't see any obvious macroscopic markers of this says more about our knowledge limitations than it does about relative levels of agency. Going further, we're all slaves to determinisic or stochastic physics playing out in our brains and environment, and our agency is just a useful fiction. The justice system should be premised on pragmatic concepts of deterrence, rehabilitation, protecting society, etc, and not on fantasy notions that person A had more agency than person B.
- Retric 6y ago
  This assumes you define a person as a constant irrespective of everything else. In effect an 8 year olds must therefore be judged as harshly as anyone else. It’s a consistent standpoint, but justice isn’t about punishment. It’s a belief that the world despite all evidence to the contrary should be fair. As such people’s internal thought process is inherently part of the judgement process, the same action with different causes is judged differently. You’re for example allowed to break some rules in an emergency therefore belief that something is an emergency is relevant. Punching someone doing a jump scare because you think their a threat is perfectly legal.
  - hntrader 6y ago
    I believe circumstance should be taken into account, but not for the purposes of assigning agency, which is a fantasy concept. It should inform the probability of recidivism, the chances that rehabilitation will work, etc, and therefore inform what type and duration of sentence/treatment is appropriate for a given case. To your example, belief that something is an emergency means that P(recidivism) is effectively the same as if they hadn't committed the action, which is the real reason why there shouldn't be any sentence given to that individual.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
  > Going further, we're all slaves to determinisic or stochastic physics playing out in our brains and environment, and our agency is just a useful fiction. >The justice system should be premised on pragmatic concepts of deterrence, rehabilitation, protecting society, etc, and not on fantasy notions that person A had more agency than person B. Without a concept of agency it is pointless to talk about “justice”. At the very least, by advocating a notion of justice, you are saying that members of society as a whole have agency to implement that concept of justice. If we all have no agency, how is a feeling that we should immediately execute all criminals unjust?
  - hntrader 6y ago
    I used the term "justice system" because that's what everyone calls it. If we want to rename it to something else, that's fine with me.

tschwimmer 6y ago

I think this is conditional, not universal. If someone did a crime for greed, or because they are a "bad person" who is seemingly rational but simply enjoys hurting people, I think you'll find that most people are not sympathetic.