4 ms·

I'm not enough in the mood to fully focus in order to be sharp enough to grok the post. Posts like this require my full focus and I unfortunately don't have it

I'm not enough in the mood to fully focus in order to be sharp enough to grok the post. Posts like this require my full focus and I unfortunately don't have it today. I'm more at like 60% :) I did read it. And I was just horrified at the idea. My issue is that it implies that families have each other's back. Not every family lives by the value that they should look out for each other. Why bind them culturally like this? To some families, being a blood relative means nothing. Let them have that value if that is how they want to live. Second, this diminishes agency. Yes, you can police other people. However, you can't control other people. It's already hard enough to do this for yourself, but at least when you screw up you can simply say "it was all my fault." There is amazing comfort and meaning in that it was all you. With that said, culturally speaking: don't some Asian countries apply some of this of this system? I don't think they go as far as family punishment, but family honor is a thing. I have a suspicion that there are cultures in the world that have a more nuanced idea on how to implement stuff like this without the grating consequences of the loss of a huge chunk of agency (among other things).

dsego 3y ago
My simplified understanding is that the author is not advocating for punishing family members. Instead he is trying to discredit consequentialism, a position that an act is morally right based on the outcome. In that view retribution serves no utility since it doesn't maximize good and only causes suffering. The consequentialsit has to find a reason for punishment, and they say that it's a deterrence for future crime, which is a good outcome. But punishing families would also provide even more deterrence and the good from it would probably outweigh the bad of punishing innocent family members. But remember, a consequentialist should only care about the outcome so the act of punishing innocents isn't morally wrong in itself. The retributionist author on the other hand believes in the inherent morality of punishing criminals and immorality of punishing innocents.

dsego 3y ago

My simplified understanding is that the author is not advocating for punishing family members. Instead he is trying to discredit consequentialism, a position that an act is morally right based on the outcome. In that view retribution serves no utility since it doesn't maximize good and only causes suffering. The consequentialsit has to find a reason for punishment, and they say that it's a deterrence for future crime, which is a good outcome. But punishing families would also provide even more deterrence and the good from it would probably outweigh the bad of punishing innocent family members. But remember, a consequentialist should only care about the outcome so the act of punishing innocents isn't morally wrong in itself. The retributionist author on the other hand believes in the inherent morality of punishing criminals and immorality of punishing innocents.