4 ms·

I don’t think there’s any evidence that most people agree with your perspective. Unless there is evidence, please don’t try to bolster your argument this way.

I don’t think there’s any evidence that most people agree with your perspective. Unless there is evidence, please don’t try to bolster your argument this way. My question, then, is this: if punishing people for crimes was shown to be ineffective for society, you would continue to support punishment? I think I must be misunderstanding. It sounds like you are saying that you’d prefer to cut off your nose to spite your face. (Punish criminals despite punishment being a net negative.) This isn’t to boost any particular flavor of justice. I am just curious about your perspective.

canadianfella 5y ago
> I don’t think there’s any evidence that most people agree with your perspective. What perspective?
slibhb 5y ago
> My question, then, is this: if punishing people for crimes was shown to be ineffective for society, you would continue to support punishment? > I think I must be misunderstanding. It sounds like you are saying that you’d prefer to cut off your nose to spite your face. (Punish criminals despite punishment being a net negative.) No, you're not misunderstanding. To me your question makes no sense. By definition, a society that does not punish criminals is no society I want to live in. It is uncivilized. If you mean, "if punishing people for crimes increases the number of crimes, would you still support it?" then my answer is yes, of course (though I don't accept the premise). Reciprocity is part of human nature. If you do something bad, you deserve to be punished in porportion. To the extent that we adopt your perspective, the value of human beings will be lost. When you punish a criminal, you are treating him with respect. You respect that he made a choice, you are showing that he didn't have to make that choice and that he could refrain from making it in the future, and that by accepting his punishment he can pay his debt. I believe that this perspective will result in less crime but even if it doesn't, I'm still in favor of it because justice is an end in itself.
- edmundsauto 5y ago
  To be clear, I didn't put forth my perspective, which is that crime and punishment and society is a very complex issue, and one that I'm not particularly well versed in. From what I do know, there are different theories of justice - utilitarian, retributive, justice, karmic, etc. Drug laws might be an interesting litmus test. Their enforcement is pretty clearly bad for society, and causes all kinds of problems. Yet, because this health issue is mistakenly categorized as a moral failing, we all suffer the effects. I'm curious to hear what you think about drug laws, especially in America.
  - slibhb 5y ago
    > To be clear, I didn't put forth my perspective, which is that crime and punishment and society is a very complex issue, and one that I'm not particularly well versed in. From what I do know, there are different theories of justice - utilitarian, retributive, justice, karmic, etc. You did put forth your perspective. > I think I must be misunderstanding. It sounds like you are saying that you’d prefer to cut off your nose to spite your face. (Punish criminals despite punishment being a net negative.) This is utilitarian thinking, period.
    - edmundsauto 5y ago
      "It sounds like you are saying" is a very different statement than "here is what I believe". For some reason, you want to project my beliefs on me - perhaps for the sake of an argument? Regardless, I don't think this is a fruitful thread for either of us.
- TomatoDash 5y ago
  > If you mean, "if punishing people for crimes increases the number of crimes, would you still support it?" then my answer is yes As a thought experiment how many more murders per year would you accept as a cost of keeping "punishment-respect" around? 10? 1000? 100K? Limitless? To me respect for others is primarily about caring, promoting health and reducing harm. To prevent someone from getting murdered is very respectful of them and their life. We can also show respect for all the choices a person will make in the future by adopting the policy that prevents them getting murdered today.

canadianfella 5y ago

> I don’t think there’s any evidence that most people agree with your perspective. What perspective?

slibhb 5y ago

> My question, then, is this: if punishing people for crimes was shown to be ineffective for society, you would continue to support punishment? > I think I must be misunderstanding. It sounds like you are saying that you’d prefer to cut off your nose to spite your face. (Punish criminals despite punishment being a net negative.) No, you're not misunderstanding. To me your question makes no sense. By definition, a society that does not punish criminals is no society I want to live in. It is uncivilized. If you mean, "if punishing people for crimes increases the number of crimes, would you still support it?" then my answer is yes, of course (though I don't accept the premise). Reciprocity is part of human nature. If you do something bad, you deserve to be punished in porportion. To the extent that we adopt your perspective, the value of human beings will be lost. When you punish a criminal, you are treating him with respect. You respect that he made a choice, you are showing that he didn't have to make that choice and that he could refrain from making it in the future, and that by accepting his punishment he can pay his debt. I believe that this perspective will result in less crime but even if it doesn't, I'm still in favor of it because justice is an end in itself.

edmundsauto 5y ago
To be clear, I didn't put forth my perspective, which is that crime and punishment and society is a very complex issue, and one that I'm not particularly well versed in. From what I do know, there are different theories of justice - utilitarian, retributive, justice, karmic, etc. Drug laws might be an interesting litmus test. Their enforcement is pretty clearly bad for society, and causes all kinds of problems. Yet, because this health issue is mistakenly categorized as a moral failing, we all suffer the effects. I'm curious to hear what you think about drug laws, especially in America.
- slibhb 5y ago
  > To be clear, I didn't put forth my perspective, which is that crime and punishment and society is a very complex issue, and one that I'm not particularly well versed in. From what I do know, there are different theories of justice - utilitarian, retributive, justice, karmic, etc. You did put forth your perspective. > I think I must be misunderstanding. It sounds like you are saying that you’d prefer to cut off your nose to spite your face. (Punish criminals despite punishment being a net negative.) This is utilitarian thinking, period.
  - edmundsauto 5y ago
    "It sounds like you are saying" is a very different statement than "here is what I believe". For some reason, you want to project my beliefs on me - perhaps for the sake of an argument? Regardless, I don't think this is a fruitful thread for either of us.
TomatoDash 5y ago
> If you mean, "if punishing people for crimes increases the number of crimes, would you still support it?" then my answer is yes As a thought experiment how many more murders per year would you accept as a cost of keeping "punishment-respect" around? 10? 1000? 100K? Limitless? To me respect for others is primarily about caring, promoting health and reducing harm. To prevent someone from getting murdered is very respectful of them and their life. We can also show respect for all the choices a person will make in the future by adopting the policy that prevents them getting murdered today.