4 ms·

You're arguing against a straw man. Most people do not consider driving a car to be a morally wrong act, certainly not one deserving of retribution. The comple

You're arguing against a straw man. Most people do not consider driving a car to be a morally wrong act, certainly not one deserving of retribution. The complexities of society, negative externalities, and infrastructure are built into our moral code. The author is not advocating for some utilitarian scheme where every possible harm you have contributed to must be paid back to you. I think you understand the difference between "morally heinous act that deserves retribution" and "participating in a society"

colinsane 3y ago
> You're arguing against a straw man. i'm struggling to balance examples which are unambiguously acts of harm but which everyone does against examples which carry moral weight. i probably got a bit too clever trying to go for both. what i'm more specifically worried about is how the author's viewpoint plays out in the world where we don't all agree on the moral code. half my country has conflicting moral views around drug use and abortion and sex reassignment. a world where i'm punished so that you can enjoy a richer life is one i can at least understand (that's just the tradeoff between positive and negative rights). but a world where i'm punished for no benefit to anyone is exactly that world in which i risk my livelihood every time i want to unwind after a stressful week of work with a record and a joint in the privacy of my own bathtub. but that's the world Caplan's advocating for when he separates punishment from things like "deterrence".
- dahfizz 3y ago
  Agreeing as a country on what is illegal / immoral is a complex issue, but it is orthogonal to the consequentialist vs retributionist debate. The discussion there is only about what happens after someone is proven to have done something society deems wrong. If anything, a consequentialist would be _more_ likely to lock you up for drug use because the net effect of forced rehab could be positive. Whereas a retributionist would want to punish you proportionally to how you have harmed others (which, in the case of smoking a joint, is no harm at all).

colinsane 3y ago

> You're arguing against a straw man. i'm struggling to balance examples which are unambiguously acts of harm but which everyone does against examples which carry moral weight. i probably got a bit too clever trying to go for both. what i'm more specifically worried about is how the author's viewpoint plays out in the world where we don't all agree on the moral code. half my country has conflicting moral views around drug use and abortion and sex reassignment. a world where i'm punished so that you can enjoy a richer life is one i can at least understand (that's just the tradeoff between positive and negative rights). but a world where i'm punished for no benefit to anyone is exactly that world in which i risk my livelihood every time i want to unwind after a stressful week of work with a record and a joint in the privacy of my own bathtub. but that's the world Caplan's advocating for when he separates punishment from things like "deterrence".

dahfizz 3y ago
Agreeing as a country on what is illegal / immoral is a complex issue, but it is orthogonal to the consequentialist vs retributionist debate. The discussion there is only about what happens after someone is proven to have done something society deems wrong. If anything, a consequentialist would be _more_ likely to lock you up for drug use because the net effect of forced rehab could be positive. Whereas a retributionist would want to punish you proportionally to how you have harmed others (which, in the case of smoking a joint, is no harm at all).