5 ms·
No, this is naive. See game theory, the "tit-for-tat" problem. Can't empower agents who would later betray you, or society would stop functioning. Punishing tho
by visarga 3y ago
No, this is naive. See game theory, the "tit-for-tat" problem. Can't empower agents who would later betray you, or society would stop functioning. Punishing those to exploit the system is in the interest of everyone else.
Would you set free a raper or killer (it wasn't his fault, it's society, culture, etc) and let the next victim pay the price?
- kaibee 3y agoYou're misunderstanding. You can hold that the killer isn't 'morally' responsible, ie: deserves to be tortured for their crime, but still imprison them indefinitely for the good of everyone else.
- The_Colonel 3y agoThis is more or less already the case in the western judicial systems, where punishment is not meant to be a revenge. The harsher punishments (like executions) are meant to deter. I think there are exceptions like Nuremberg trials where the executions were more of a revenge.