5 ms·

So, thieves cannot be fined for their crimes (take their money after they took someone else's), kidnappers cannot go to jail (take their freedom after they took

So, thieves cannot be fined for their crimes (take their money after they took someone else's), kidnappers cannot go to jail (take their freedom after they took someone else's) - because it would undermine, what exactly? That makes no sense.

graderjs 5y ago
Well it makes sense to me. Your reading is a little bit uncharitable. Seems almost like you didn't make any effort to understand it, and just rather pretend that it's stupid...Sigh. But I suppose I could have helped you by saying the other part which I think about this: That's why the legal system is so important. We need a way to do these things, that's not about individuals getting revenge. So...you kill Alice, then society takes it up with you, through their legal/punitive officers--rather than Alice's family. But even so...that doesn't fully resolve it for me, the paradox I see there. But at the same time, I get your point of view. I mean, what that means we can't punish anyone? Because we don't want to seem bad, by pushing back against the bad people? Are you saying we just turn the other cheek? That's crazy. Yeah, I get that...But I think it's important...You do some crime, and I say, "I have to get back at you". But no, I'm the one that has to be moral. Individuals have to be moral. The state doesn't have to be moral in the same way. But we can't let that spill over to individuals otherwise everything collapses. I mean, I'm not saying I can resolve this right here--and your strong reaction to what I said, indicates that I have raised a complex, subtle point that's not easy to resolve. People face stuff like that, it's difficult, so they react strongly, or emphatically, like you did. So I think we need the state, the organs of the state, to be able to enact this violence on our part (take their money, their freedom, their life--maybe? I'm not sure about the last one). Then we can afford to be moral and live up to that, and that's good overall. It's not perfect but then what other options do we have?
- femiagbabiaka 5y ago
  You’re exactly right. In fact resolving this paradox and avoiding the chaos of blood price for crimes committed are part of the themes of every system of law since Hammurabi’s code.
  - graderjs 5y ago
    Thanks a lot, that's really kind. It's great to feel my struggle with is backed by thousands of years of other people struggling with it. And your comment helps me feel interested to read more into it! Thank you! :)
- nautilius 5y ago
  Seems almost like you didn't make any effort to understand what I wrote. Sigh. My interpretation is not uncharitable, it's precisely the same argument you are making, and, to me, it makes no sense - as shown by my examples. Clearly, you have no problem with fines for thieves and prison for kidnappers, and why should you - so you agree with me. I think the resolution to the problem of 'punishment' is exactly the one you point out at the end: we hand over the monopoly of violence to the democratic state. Thus the point you're making is wrong: the problem is not at all whether we punish by exactly the same measure that we're punishing for. The simple truth is that the death penalty is a qualitative very different kind of punishment (which I find barbaric, just for the record). Edit: I don't really see where I react strongly or emphatically. I'm just pointing out that your logic does not hold up.
  - graderjs 5y ago
    Really? But I just said this: > But at the same time, I get your point of view. I mean, what that means we can't punish anyone? Because we don't want to seem bad, by pushing back against the bad people? Are you saying we just turn the other cheek? That's crazy. > Yeah, I get that...But I think it's important...You do some crime, and I say, "I have to get back at you". But no, I'm the one that has to be moral. Individuals have to be moral. The state doesn't have to be moral in the same way. But we can't let that spill over to individuals otherwise everything collapses. I mean doesn't that look like I'm making an effort to understand your POV? That's exactly what I'm doing? What does that look like to you? How did you take that? --- Second thing: > My interpretation is not uncharitable, it's precisely the same argument you are making Well I'm saying it is uncharitable. I think you think that it's the same, but maybe you don't see how you've misinterpreted. In my first post (GP?) I don't mention the state. Now, it's understandable if maybe you thought I was talking about that (use of possibly ambiguous "you", or "their", or "yourselves" to refer to who I was saying claimed they could punish like this), but to me I was clearly replying to the ancestor phrase "The victim's family is saying:" Maybe that was not clear, but I thought it was. Sorry, maybe that was what confused you? So, in that context where I am talking about it (what I said up there), the context is: when people say they want to respond in the same way. That is different to the point you're making, I think. I think you're saying, that I'm saying: "We don't have a right to punish people, because if we do, we are not moral. And we shouldn't punish people in the same form as their transgression." That is what I'm saying...but I'm also genuinely trying to explore it and being more modal than, "well it is 100% like this." I'm just saying what I said up there. But I think your mischaracterization is that your meaning is maybe like this: "You are referring to the state. You are saying the state cannot punish people because it would undermine its moral position somehow. This is obviously nonsense. You are wrong. Because then we do not punish anyone. Also, what's really wrong with punishing in the same form? It's not even a point. Also wrong." Let's leave aside the "same form" thing because that's, probably, you know, something else. But I just think your mischaracterization is to mischaracterize or misinterpret, the who of what I'm talking about. And that part's understandable maybe--ok?--because I didn't make it explicitly clear. But what you're saying I'm saying, is not exactly the point I'm making, and it is uncharitable because it doesn't seem to try to see it from the point of view where it could be true...your mischaracterization throws out the stuff I'm saying about the seeming moral paradox, and reduces the modal exploratory aspect to an absolute one, ignores the part where I'm making an effort to consider your PoV, and seems to deny that considering this as a moral problem is a valid consideration. Also, saying "You have no problem with punishing" is a complete mischaracterization, stripping off the subtlety of what I'm trying to explore, which is that, to me, these things are moral issues like I said above. I mean one basic point is, if what you're trying to do is prove me wrong, then having to misinterpret and reduce what I'm saying in order to prove it wrong, is invalid...it doesn't touch what I'm saying. So you've only proved wrong, if you have, your misinterpretation of what I'm saying. And sort of validated what I'm saying and the difficulty of proving it wrong, by avoiding dealing with it. Now maybe you don't see it like that, and I get it. Maybe you just genuinely think your interpretation was totally valid, and I'm just shifting the goal posts to avoid being pinned down by the formidable pincers of your immaculate logic...or some stuff like that, whatever. Or maybe you are doing it deliberately...or maybe it's just a blindspot and you don't realize you're doing it? Maybe? For me the far more important point tho, is about how people interact in discussions, not the proving wrong. And it just seems like you're saying, what I've said is all invalid and wrong. It kind of hurts. Because it does hurt. And also because I'm dealing with the topic genuinely, and curiously. And it just feels like you just want to prove a point, and you don't care who you misinterpret, like you don't care how you misinterpret what someone says into some form you can say "it's wrong" because it seems you only care about saying "it's wrong." rather than about hearing or dealing honestly and respectfully with what someone is saying. I mean you could have just said, "Well maybe it's right, how could this guy be meaning in a way that's right? What could they be trying to say here that's not the obvious rebuttal I can make or what I might be misinterpreting? Maybe they're more subtle than that?" Because when you do that, you know, mischaracterization and say "you're wrong", I feel a bit sad, because it seems like you're saying, "This person is stupid." Because you're assuming the stupidest interpretation, the one that obviously doesn't make sense. Is that what you think I'm saying? Why do you need to look down on me? And I just think that's a bit sad. I'm engaging genuinely, but it seems you just wanna prove someone wrong...and you don't care who you hurt? I was a little scared to reply you because I got the feeling you might do that...but, I gave you a chance. I picked up the strong reaction in your first answer, and I felt scared you would try and just do that, and you did. It was a feeling, but some points in the text you could link it to are: "undermine what exactly? [[ your point about undermining is invalid, there's no complexity here ]] That makes no sense." It was my feeling about your intention but those words are even pretty strong to me. I get that maybe you don't see that...sad to say, but I think that not seeing it might be obvious. Maybe you can think about how that might come across... --- Third thing: I mean if you want to take some overly literal editorialized misinterpretation of what someone said, and pretend it's their logic that doesn't make sense, rather than your interpretation (because I guess that helps you feel smart(er?) for seeing the flaws in their logic, but it's a little unfair and twisted to foist your perverted misinterpretation on what they say, just to get your rocks off by feeling they're wrong and you're smart, right?), I mean it's actually not that difficult to do that...so how does it feel, "My interpretation is not uncharitable...so you agree with me...Thus the point you're making is wrong" I mean I can do that, and be like, "Gotcha. If I'm wrong, but I agree with you, then you're wrong too?" Clearly a more simplistic misinterpretation than your more subtle misinterpretation, but of the same kind, and seemingly the same intention. The thing is, that kind of stuff, doesn't lead to interesting or fun conversations, I think...because then we got to waste time maybe going back over like, "i didn't mean that," "you didn't mean this", it's a time saving effort if you just respond to the strongest position. And even if I didn't mean that strongest position, then maybe I can rise to it (I mean--you see me as capable of that, right?) then we could have had a more fun and interesting conversation, right? but to do that you have to surrender the temptation of seeing someone else as stupid, and what they're saying as wrong, so you can feel smart(er)? because if you don't surrender that temptation, it's just for you then, it's not a contribution to the community. maybe you feel as if your contributions will not be appreciated, so you fall back to this. getting your jollies in this "taking" way (and in this current context, kind of immoral, because nobody took anything from you at the first, at least not here~~not saying you had an easy time online tho...but does that mean you keep being unkind/uncharitable?). because when you do that, it hurts, because you're devaluing what other people are saying. I hope you see that, or reflect on it, and maybe try to be better to others...please.
- Stupulous 5y ago
  I don't know if this will be helpful to you, but I'm throwing it out there. In a consequentialist, utilitarian moral system, revenge cannot be a moral good on its own. If a universe where one person gets hurt is worse than a universe where no one gets hurt, a world where two people get hurt must be worse still. So if you're utilitarian, you believe in justice as a means to prevent crime. Punishing people can act as a deterrent, imprisoning people can separate them from would-be victims, and rehabilitation can prevent future crimes. Some people aren't consequentialists, but retributivists. They believe that deserved punishment is innately good. A universe that is fair is one in which those that cheat are issued handicaps to balance that out- think the reckless driver who gets pulled over frequently enough that it doesn't buy them any time in the long run. A fair universe is morally preferable to an unfair one. This also makes sense, though it's somewhat at odds with the utilitarian perspective.
  - graderjs 5y ago
    Well this has been a surprising explosion of positivity here on this thread. Some of these comments, look at you, thank you! That's interesting. And I don't know much about that, but your comment is going to help me look into that, when it's time for me to do so: consequentialists, retributivists, and utilitarianism. Thank you :) It's an interesting, seemingly two valid perspectives that are in contradiction. Thank you! :)
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
unmole 5y ago
Fines and jail sentences are imposed by courts. It would be weird for a grocery store clerk to overcharge a convicted thief after they served their sentence.
- nautilius 5y ago
  We're talking about the morality of the reaction, not about who imposes it. GP argues that it's morally fundamentally wrong to react to some else's 'misbehavior' by imposing the very same action as punishment.
  - graderjs 5y ago
    Well maybe not wrong fundamentally...but it calls into question your stance against the thing you end up doing.
  - vidarh 5y ago
    Graderjs comment does not say they are morally fundamentally wrong. They say that the specific argument that life-taking is bad is undermined by arguing for life-taking. This does not preclude other arguments for why life-taking may be bad, nor other arguments for why it may be justified in specific circumstances. Note that graderjs' very own comment gives examples of other possible arguments for "eye for an eye": > It will teach people a lesson, let them know they can't mess with us, and let them know there are consequences if they try. Hopefully, my ape brain says, that will make us safer and rest easier, in future. As such it's very clear that graderjs is not making any sort of claim to absolute morality, but addressing the weakness of a specific line of argumentation.
vidarh 5y ago
Note that graderjs is not saying that there could not be other morally justifiable reasons for calling for the death of someone. What they were saying is specifically that arguing that someone who takes a life should be punished in a life ending way because of the severity of taking a life is undermining that argument's own central claim of the severity of taking a life by at the same time arguing for ending a life. Your analogies are flawed for two reasons: 1. there are other justifications for punishments that may (or may not) be valid. One argument may be that it is preventative, for example. 2. in neither example would most people argue that we're imposing a particularly extreme sentence because the action was particularly extreme, and this is central to the argument made by graderjs. In the case of the theft example, if anything we'd tend to argue a fine is not a very serious punishment. In the case of kidnap, we argue for serious sentences because of the seriousness of the crime, but a prison sentence would not be seen by most people as equally cruel as the uncertainty and fear and trauma imposed on both the victim and their loved ones, and most people would argue that the prison sentence is not just a response to the seriousness of the crime committed. Some people might nevertheless find it hypocritical to argue for prison sentence on the basis of the seriousness of kidnapping, and its their right. But that in itself does not make a prison sentence unjustifiable even if you agree with them, because you may have many other arguments, such as e.g. risk of reoffending, or signal effect to others. The point is in other words not that a given punishment can't be justified, but that if you choose to argue that something is particularly severe and then in the same breath argues for inflicting that same thing on someone because of that perceived severity, you're undermining that argument.
- nautilius 5y ago
  The analogy is not flawed because the comments you made are precisely my point: it's not a general, fundamental, moral conundrum -- it's that the death penalty is its own special beast. Graderjs argues from a general perspective using the example, but not limiting his arguments to, the death penalty. And then, as you and I point out, it simply does not hold up. It's the severity that makes it stand out, not the overall act of 'are we moral if we do the same thing'. Graderjs also makes no argument about other justifications of 'punishment', and, again, I'm with you. Note that I often write 'punishment' in quotation marks. I don't believe (and the numbers between countries support that) that revenge is a productive reaction from a society.

graderjs 5y ago

Well it makes sense to me. Your reading is a little bit uncharitable. Seems almost like you didn't make any effort to understand it, and just rather pretend that it's stupid...Sigh. But I suppose I could have helped you by saying the other part which I think about this: That's why the legal system is so important. We need a way to do these things, that's not about individuals getting revenge. So...you kill Alice, then society takes it up with you, through their legal/punitive officers--rather than Alice's family. But even so...that doesn't fully resolve it for me, the paradox I see there. But at the same time, I get your point of view. I mean, what that means we can't punish anyone? Because we don't want to seem bad, by pushing back against the bad people? Are you saying we just turn the other cheek? That's crazy. Yeah, I get that...But I think it's important...You do some crime, and I say, "I have to get back at you". But no, I'm the one that has to be moral. Individuals have to be moral. The state doesn't have to be moral in the same way. But we can't let that spill over to individuals otherwise everything collapses. I mean, I'm not saying I can resolve this right here--and your strong reaction to what I said, indicates that I have raised a complex, subtle point that's not easy to resolve. People face stuff like that, it's difficult, so they react strongly, or emphatically, like you did. So I think we need the state, the organs of the state, to be able to enact this violence on our part (take their money, their freedom, their life--maybe? I'm not sure about the last one). Then we can afford to be moral and live up to that, and that's good overall. It's not perfect but then what other options do we have?

femiagbabiaka 5y ago
You’re exactly right. In fact resolving this paradox and avoiding the chaos of blood price for crimes committed are part of the themes of every system of law since Hammurabi’s code.
- graderjs 5y ago
  Thanks a lot, that's really kind. It's great to feel my struggle with is backed by thousands of years of other people struggling with it. And your comment helps me feel interested to read more into it! Thank you! :)
nautilius 5y ago
Seems almost like you didn't make any effort to understand what I wrote. Sigh. My interpretation is not uncharitable, it's precisely the same argument you are making, and, to me, it makes no sense - as shown by my examples. Clearly, you have no problem with fines for thieves and prison for kidnappers, and why should you - so you agree with me. I think the resolution to the problem of 'punishment' is exactly the one you point out at the end: we hand over the monopoly of violence to the democratic state. Thus the point you're making is wrong: the problem is not at all whether we punish by exactly the same measure that we're punishing for. The simple truth is that the death penalty is a qualitative very different kind of punishment (which I find barbaric, just for the record). Edit: I don't really see where I react strongly or emphatically. I'm just pointing out that your logic does not hold up.
- graderjs 5y ago
  Really? But I just said this: > But at the same time, I get your point of view. I mean, what that means we can't punish anyone? Because we don't want to seem bad, by pushing back against the bad people? Are you saying we just turn the other cheek? That's crazy. > Yeah, I get that...But I think it's important...You do some crime, and I say, "I have to get back at you". But no, I'm the one that has to be moral. Individuals have to be moral. The state doesn't have to be moral in the same way. But we can't let that spill over to individuals otherwise everything collapses. I mean doesn't that look like I'm making an effort to understand your POV? That's exactly what I'm doing? What does that look like to you? How did you take that? --- Second thing: > My interpretation is not uncharitable, it's precisely the same argument you are making Well I'm saying it is uncharitable. I think you think that it's the same, but maybe you don't see how you've misinterpreted. In my first post (GP?) I don't mention the state. Now, it's understandable if maybe you thought I was talking about that (use of possibly ambiguous "you", or "their", or "yourselves" to refer to who I was saying claimed they could punish like this), but to me I was clearly replying to the ancestor phrase "The victim's family is saying:" Maybe that was not clear, but I thought it was. Sorry, maybe that was what confused you? So, in that context where I am talking about it (what I said up there), the context is: when people say they want to respond in the same way. That is different to the point you're making, I think. I think you're saying, that I'm saying: "We don't have a right to punish people, because if we do, we are not moral. And we shouldn't punish people in the same form as their transgression." That is what I'm saying...but I'm also genuinely trying to explore it and being more modal than, "well it is 100% like this." I'm just saying what I said up there. But I think your mischaracterization is that your meaning is maybe like this: "You are referring to the state. You are saying the state cannot punish people because it would undermine its moral position somehow. This is obviously nonsense. You are wrong. Because then we do not punish anyone. Also, what's really wrong with punishing in the same form? It's not even a point. Also wrong." Let's leave aside the "same form" thing because that's, probably, you know, something else. But I just think your mischaracterization is to mischaracterize or misinterpret, the who of what I'm talking about. And that part's understandable maybe--ok?--because I didn't make it explicitly clear. But what you're saying I'm saying, is not exactly the point I'm making, and it is uncharitable because it doesn't seem to try to see it from the point of view where it could be true...your mischaracterization throws out the stuff I'm saying about the seeming moral paradox, and reduces the modal exploratory aspect to an absolute one, ignores the part where I'm making an effort to consider your PoV, and seems to deny that considering this as a moral problem is a valid consideration. Also, saying "You have no problem with punishing" is a complete mischaracterization, stripping off the subtlety of what I'm trying to explore, which is that, to me, these things are moral issues like I said above. I mean one basic point is, if what you're trying to do is prove me wrong, then having to misinterpret and reduce what I'm saying in order to prove it wrong, is invalid...it doesn't touch what I'm saying. So you've only proved wrong, if you have, your misinterpretation of what I'm saying. And sort of validated what I'm saying and the difficulty of proving it wrong, by avoiding dealing with it. Now maybe you don't see it like that, and I get it. Maybe you just genuinely think your interpretation was totally valid, and I'm just shifting the goal posts to avoid being pinned down by the formidable pincers of your immaculate logic...or some stuff like that, whatever. Or maybe you are doing it deliberately...or maybe it's just a blindspot and you don't realize you're doing it? Maybe? For me the far more important point tho, is about how people interact in discussions, not the proving wrong. And it just seems like you're saying, what I've said is all invalid and wrong. It kind of hurts. Because it does hurt. And also because I'm dealing with the topic genuinely, and curiously. And it just feels like you just want to prove a point, and you don't care who you misinterpret, like you don't care how you misinterpret what someone says into some form you can say "it's wrong" because it seems you only care about saying "it's wrong." rather than about hearing or dealing honestly and respectfully with what someone is saying. I mean you could have just said, "Well maybe it's right, how could this guy be meaning in a way that's right? What could they be trying to say here that's not the obvious rebuttal I can make or what I might be misinterpreting? Maybe they're more subtle than that?" Because when you do that, you know, mischaracterization and say "you're wrong", I feel a bit sad, because it seems like you're saying, "This person is stupid." Because you're assuming the stupidest interpretation, the one that obviously doesn't make sense. Is that what you think I'm saying? Why do you need to look down on me? And I just think that's a bit sad. I'm engaging genuinely, but it seems you just wanna prove someone wrong...and you don't care who you hurt? I was a little scared to reply you because I got the feeling you might do that...but, I gave you a chance. I picked up the strong reaction in your first answer, and I felt scared you would try and just do that, and you did. It was a feeling, but some points in the text you could link it to are: "undermine what exactly? [[ your point about undermining is invalid, there's no complexity here ]] That makes no sense." It was my feeling about your intention but those words are even pretty strong to me. I get that maybe you don't see that...sad to say, but I think that not seeing it might be obvious. Maybe you can think about how that might come across... --- Third thing: I mean if you want to take some overly literal editorialized misinterpretation of what someone said, and pretend it's their logic that doesn't make sense, rather than your interpretation (because I guess that helps you feel smart(er?) for seeing the flaws in their logic, but it's a little unfair and twisted to foist your perverted misinterpretation on what they say, just to get your rocks off by feeling they're wrong and you're smart, right?), I mean it's actually not that difficult to do that...so how does it feel, "My interpretation is not uncharitable...so you agree with me...Thus the point you're making is wrong" I mean I can do that, and be like, "Gotcha. If I'm wrong, but I agree with you, then you're wrong too?" Clearly a more simplistic misinterpretation than your more subtle misinterpretation, but of the same kind, and seemingly the same intention. The thing is, that kind of stuff, doesn't lead to interesting or fun conversations, I think...because then we got to waste time maybe going back over like, "i didn't mean that," "you didn't mean this", it's a time saving effort if you just respond to the strongest position. And even if I didn't mean that strongest position, then maybe I can rise to it (I mean--you see me as capable of that, right?) then we could have had a more fun and interesting conversation, right? but to do that you have to surrender the temptation of seeing someone else as stupid, and what they're saying as wrong, so you can feel smart(er)? because if you don't surrender that temptation, it's just for you then, it's not a contribution to the community. maybe you feel as if your contributions will not be appreciated, so you fall back to this. getting your jollies in this "taking" way (and in this current context, kind of immoral, because nobody took anything from you at the first, at least not here~~not saying you had an easy time online tho...but does that mean you keep being unkind/uncharitable?). because when you do that, it hurts, because you're devaluing what other people are saying. I hope you see that, or reflect on it, and maybe try to be better to others...please.
Stupulous 5y ago
I don't know if this will be helpful to you, but I'm throwing it out there. In a consequentialist, utilitarian moral system, revenge cannot be a moral good on its own. If a universe where one person gets hurt is worse than a universe where no one gets hurt, a world where two people get hurt must be worse still. So if you're utilitarian, you believe in justice as a means to prevent crime. Punishing people can act as a deterrent, imprisoning people can separate them from would-be victims, and rehabilitation can prevent future crimes. Some people aren't consequentialists, but retributivists. They believe that deserved punishment is innately good. A universe that is fair is one in which those that cheat are issued handicaps to balance that out- think the reckless driver who gets pulled over frequently enough that it doesn't buy them any time in the long run. A fair universe is morally preferable to an unfair one. This also makes sense, though it's somewhat at odds with the utilitarian perspective.
- graderjs 5y ago
  Well this has been a surprising explosion of positivity here on this thread. Some of these comments, look at you, thank you! That's interesting. And I don't know much about that, but your comment is going to help me look into that, when it's time for me to do so: consequentialists, retributivists, and utilitarianism. Thank you :) It's an interesting, seemingly two valid perspectives that are in contradiction. Thank you! :)
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

unmole 5y ago

Fines and jail sentences are imposed by courts. It would be weird for a grocery store clerk to overcharge a convicted thief after they served their sentence.

nautilius 5y ago
We're talking about the morality of the reaction, not about who imposes it. GP argues that it's morally fundamentally wrong to react to some else's 'misbehavior' by imposing the very same action as punishment.
- graderjs 5y ago
  Well maybe not wrong fundamentally...but it calls into question your stance against the thing you end up doing.
- vidarh 5y ago
  Graderjs comment does not say they are morally fundamentally wrong. They say that the specific argument that life-taking is bad is undermined by arguing for life-taking. This does not preclude other arguments for why life-taking may be bad, nor other arguments for why it may be justified in specific circumstances. Note that graderjs' very own comment gives examples of other possible arguments for "eye for an eye": > It will teach people a lesson, let them know they can't mess with us, and let them know there are consequences if they try. Hopefully, my ape brain says, that will make us safer and rest easier, in future. As such it's very clear that graderjs is not making any sort of claim to absolute morality, but addressing the weakness of a specific line of argumentation.

vidarh 5y ago

Note that graderjs is not saying that there could not be other morally justifiable reasons for calling for the death of someone. What they were saying is specifically that arguing that someone who takes a life should be punished in a life ending way because of the severity of taking a life is undermining that argument's own central claim of the severity of taking a life by at the same time arguing for ending a life. Your analogies are flawed for two reasons: 1. there are other justifications for punishments that may (or may not) be valid. One argument may be that it is preventative, for example. 2. in neither example would most people argue that we're imposing a particularly extreme sentence because the action was particularly extreme, and this is central to the argument made by graderjs. In the case of the theft example, if anything we'd tend to argue a fine is not a very serious punishment. In the case of kidnap, we argue for serious sentences because of the seriousness of the crime, but a prison sentence would not be seen by most people as equally cruel as the uncertainty and fear and trauma imposed on both the victim and their loved ones, and most people would argue that the prison sentence is not just a response to the seriousness of the crime committed. Some people might nevertheless find it hypocritical to argue for prison sentence on the basis of the seriousness of kidnapping, and its their right. But that in itself does not make a prison sentence unjustifiable even if you agree with them, because you may have many other arguments, such as e.g. risk of reoffending, or signal effect to others. The point is in other words not that a given punishment can't be justified, but that if you choose to argue that something is particularly severe and then in the same breath argues for inflicting that same thing on someone because of that perceived severity, you're undermining that argument.

nautilius 5y ago
The analogy is not flawed because the comments you made are precisely my point: it's not a general, fundamental, moral conundrum -- it's that the death penalty is its own special beast. Graderjs argues from a general perspective using the example, but not limiting his arguments to, the death penalty. And then, as you and I point out, it simply does not hold up. It's the severity that makes it stand out, not the overall act of 'are we moral if we do the same thing'. Graderjs also makes no argument about other justifications of 'punishment', and, again, I'm with you. Note that I often write 'punishment' in quotation marks. I don't believe (and the numbers between countries support that) that revenge is a productive reaction from a society.