4 ms·

Some tools are definitely better than others. Also some tools are not "the right tool" for the job. Fundamentally though I'm not sure I agree with you. Violenc

• martin-t 8mo ago
  > the right tool Keep in mind this needs to be judged separately in the legal, practical and moral dimension. For example a state might determine that a person _legally_ deserves to spend 10 years in prison. But the same state will attack you in turn if you abduct that person and hold them for 10 years in similar conditions to prison because _practically_, it weakens the state's monopoly on violence, even if _morally_ that action can be justified (i.e. because if a punishment is just there is no moral reason why it should matter who carries it out). > often ... usually (always?) I think the crux lies in how we quantify this. If you live in a western democracy, almost all of the violence you come into contact with or hear about is in fact used by bad individuals (thiefs, gang members, drunks, etc.) or the mentally ill. But even then you have the right (moral and usually legal) to defend yourself. If you live in other places, that violence might more often be used be institutions (such as states or religions) and might not be materialized (it is potential/threatened/implied). E.g. what happens to a muslim woman who refuses to cover her face - the violence usually never happens because she knows it would and therefore doesn't break the rule. It is still violence used to achieve a goal though and she has the same (moral but usually not legal) right to defend herself - even if any practical defense is beyond her ability to do so because the aggressors are too numerous and dispersed. I would argue that billions of people live in countries where violence is used against them every day because it is a threat which for example stops them from freely accessing information. In that regard you're right that it is usually used by bad people. But it says nothing about its morality. The way I see it, violence being used by bad people is a stable equilibrium but it can be used by good people during a transition to a different stable state. It is usually not used by good people in a prolonged because materialized violence tends to reduce the number of people on both sides and cannot be sustained forever.
  • c22 8mo ago
    I don't believe that punishment can be just, and ergo I don't see a moral axis on which to judge violent actions for this purpose. I might concede the use of threatened violence as a means of control, but I don't see any pragmatic way to accomplish this without at least occasional actual punishment so it's a bit non sequiter. It's likely our views are divergent enough that we wont come to a consensus on this, but I appreciate the nuanced discourse!
    • martin-t 8mo ago
      > I don't believe that punishment can be just I've encountered such opinions before but never cared to engage with them since they seem utterly alien to me. Can you give me a summary of your opinions or links to some materials? There are multiple goals to a punishment - e.g.: - Deterrence - Protection of others / prevention of re-offense - Removal of aggressor from community to minimize further trauma for the victim by having to interact with him - Restitution - Retribution - Vindication - Removing any gains from the offense from the aggressor - Further disadvantaging of the aggressor to make up for `expected_gains * probability_of_getting_caught` - Further disadvantaging of the aggressor to put negative evolutionary pressure on such behavior - Separation of the aggressor from others to prevent him from normalizing / spreading his behavior These few are just off the top of my head, not all apply to all offenses, and not everyone will agree all of these are desired by their favorite society. But how do you achieve any, let along most, of them without punishment?
      • c22 8mo ago
        Sure. It's not something I was formally taught, but rather a viewpoint I came to over time, informed by my own anecdotal experiences and observations. So I don't have any links to share with you, but I'm happy to give a go at explaining my logic. The naive summary would be that if an individual harms another this is "bad" (a harm to society). To then enact a punishment would be to apply another harm, which would be doubly bad. In my mind, justice is the restoration of balance to the whole, so double harm can never be considered just. I understand the "goals of punishment" you've outlined and don't even disagree that they can be met (to some extent) via this mechanism. Though I wouldn't classify restitution as a "punishment"[0]. I can also see how the harms from punishment can be moderated when enacted by a state (a group of individuals holding some claim to legitimate power). The question is not whether a system of punishment is sufficient, but whether it is necessary. If the goal is to reduce all harm to the minimum practical amount we must be pragmatic in our analysis and execution. I have also seen states grossly amplify the harms involved well past what any individual could be capable of and I have seen individuals operating on behalf of the state launder harm through their office to absolve themselves of any personal accountability for what are ultimately personal actions. From my observations, those who receive punishment after causing harm rarely become reformed and productive members of society. If anything the punishment[1] leaves them bitter and often actively disadvantages their opportunities for success, leading them to commit more harms and drawing us down a dangerous spiral. Even in confinement these individuals often commit harm to their peers or to those that guard them—and, more abstractly, to the tax payers that are compelled to back this system. It's not that I doubt these methods can "work" to some extent, but that I see us stuck in a local maxima. I believe we can do much better. I believe the vast majority of crime that is commited in modern societies could be eliminated through better education, cooperation, and social equality. Why commit crimes, especially violent ones, when the opportunity cost of not pursuing more productive activities is large? For what remains, I would propose applying insurance. When the volcano erupts and the magma damages my house I do not feel the need to "punish" the volcano. I do believe there is a floor to violence (and other criminal acts) that will exist no matter what we do. (One-off crimes of passion or acts commited by the criminally insane, for instance). For some of these there may not be any better answer than imprisonment or exile in order to protect the community from future acts. However, I'd love to explore the proactive solutions I recommended above (education, equality, etc) and leave the shrinking vestiges of the current system to handle these edge cases if necessary. [0]: Likewise, I can see the utility of—e.g—restraining orders and would not call those a "punishment" either, though in this we start to get into the grey area of restraint (limiting an individual's freedom of movement could be classified as a harm). [1]: Excepting the ultimate punishment.