4 ms·

I think the author did not try to justify retributivist's view in this article, but, rather, suggest consequentialists cannot make better argument.

TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
The argument misses differences assumes that individual power and agency are infinite - which is something economists like to do, because it's a bedrock misdirection that capitalism requires to function. In reality most people have limited agency, and failing to live according to the terms and conditions set by those with more power can have serious negative consequences. Obviously (to me at least) the people ultimately responsible for resulting horrors and atrocities are those with the most power and agency. Individually, there's a line to be drawn between enthusiastic compliance and reluctant compliance. There's also a line between healthy self-responsible functioning and diminished responsibility because of mental illness and/or breakdown. Even so - ultimately when someone else sets the terms, they're responsible for what happens. This culture is set up to hide that reality. The more power and agency you have the less you're personally responsible for the consequences of your actions. Fictions like limited liability companies, corporate personhood, "markets", the invisible hand, and the rest all exist to absolve the rich and powerful from personal consequences. Very occasionally people go to jail for fraud - usually for inconveniencing the wrong class of people. But more extreme transgressions - promoting tobacco and alcohol addictions, abusing workers (sometimes to death), pushing destructive drugs through official channels, destroying public education, using healthcare to exploit not to heal, knowingly using media channels to distribute lies, poisoning the ecosystem - are either not punished at all or punished with inconvenient fines.

TheOtherHobbes 3y ago

The argument misses differences assumes that individual power and agency are infinite - which is something economists like to do, because it's a bedrock misdirection that capitalism requires to function. In reality most people have limited agency, and failing to live according to the terms and conditions set by those with more power can have serious negative consequences. Obviously (to me at least) the people ultimately responsible for resulting horrors and atrocities are those with the most power and agency. Individually, there's a line to be drawn between enthusiastic compliance and reluctant compliance. There's also a line between healthy self-responsible functioning and diminished responsibility because of mental illness and/or breakdown. Even so - ultimately when someone else sets the terms, they're responsible for what happens. This culture is set up to hide that reality. The more power and agency you have the less you're personally responsible for the consequences of your actions. Fictions like limited liability companies, corporate personhood, "markets", the invisible hand, and the rest all exist to absolve the rich and powerful from personal consequences. Very occasionally people go to jail for fraud - usually for inconveniencing the wrong class of people. But more extreme transgressions - promoting tobacco and alcohol addictions, abusing workers (sometimes to death), pushing destructive drugs through official channels, destroying public education, using healthcare to exploit not to heal, knowingly using media channels to distribute lies, poisoning the ecosystem - are either not punished at all or punished with inconvenient fines.