5 ms·

The deal is, who does it help? I live in Denmark, have norwegian friends and family. I might think he is the devil, but it does not make sense to punish him; it

by MrJagil 12y ago

The deal is, who does it help? I live in Denmark, have norwegian friends and family. I might think he is the devil, but it does not make sense to punish him; it helps no one but my ego. There is certainly a case to be made that he is too dangerous to let outside, no way I will disagree with that notion. But having him fight for toilet paper is pointless cruelty, and there is no sense in fighting the pointless cruelty of killing with pointless cruelty poor living conditions. Using Breivik as an example does not further the discussion though, as it is such an extreme case. It's fear mongering, and you're disregarding Hegelian dialectics by arguing in such logical extremes. I think we can all agree that lobbing the dysfunctioning members of society together in a desensitized and unsanitary confined area is no way to produce functioning, productive members of society.

Dylan16807 12y ago
'deserves to be in prison' does not imply 'deserves terrible living conditions' So most of your comment is wasted. As far as whether punishment 'makes sense', that depends on what moral system you use. I wouldn't treat it as so obvious.
- MrJagil 12y ago
  'deserves to be in prison' does not imply 'deserves terrible living conditions' Yes it does. "deserves" very much alludes to revenge, not rehabilitation. "As far as whether punishment 'makes sense', that depends on what moral system you use. I wouldn't treat it as so obvious." Everything depends on everything; could you elaborate? Just to further the discussion a bit. Being a deterrent has nothing to do with morals, which I see as the main argument for punishment so I'm curious where you're getting at.
  - Dylan16807 12y ago
    >Yes it does. "deserves" very much alludes to revenge, not rehabilitation. Possibly revenge. You might want nobody to ever face that person again, etc. Even if it's revenge that doesn't mean you want them to suffer in any particular way. Take away their freedom and turn them into an inert ignorable abstract in a box somewhere. You could stick them in an average motel room and the result would be the same. >could you elaborate? Just as an example, Christianity is pretty big on the concept of retribution. While it does say that it's God's job rather than man's, that doesn't change that it declares bad people deserve punishment independent of the deterrence factor.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > Just as an example, Christianity is pretty big on the concept of retribution. That's...debatable, and varies considerably between different approaches to Christianity, even within individual denominations/sects. > While it does say that it's God's job rather than man's, that doesn't change that it declares bad people deserve punishment independent of the deterrence factor. This is only true of Christianity in general if you define "bad people" extremely broadly; Christianity in general holds that essentially infinite punishment is deserved by (or, in some formulations, the natural consequence of) sin, of which all humans [0] are guilty. Christianity is -- in pretty much all formulations -- very much about God eliminating this deserved punishment or bearing (through Christ) in the place of sinners this natural cost. So, one could argue at least as convincingly (if not more) that the central theme of Christianity is refraining from retribution even where it is "deserved" as one could argue that "Christianity is pretty big on the concept of retribution". [0] with either 1 or 2 (exactly, not as a figurative form for "a small number") exceptions, ever
      - Dylan16807 12y ago
        I am intentionally being very broad, yes. I'm only trying to support my claim that 'deserving' punishment depends on your moral system. Maybe I should focus on Judaism? I'm really not trying to get into any specific systems. >refraining from retribution That's very true, but the important thing here is that it's deserved in the first place.
        dragonwriter 12y ago
        > That's very true, but the important thing here is that it's deserved in the first place. I don't think that's the important thing here; I think that whether it is appropriate for any person to exact it is at least as important in discussing whether punishment (which is an action) "makes sense". Even if a cost is viewed as earned within a moral system, if that moral system equally holds that it is immoral for any person to impose that cost on the one that deserves it, retributive punishment does not make sense in that moral system.
- lotsofcows 12y ago
  "'deserves to be in prison' does not imply 'deserves terrible living conditions'" - It might not, but that is what this article is about. His comments are entirely appropriate. "makes sense" has nothing to do with morality. It's to do with likely outcomes and cost. Also, if your "morality" is based on revenge, it's not moral.
logicchains 12y ago
>Using Breivik as an example does not further the discussion though, as it is such an extreme case. I was supporting the grandparent post's suggestion that maybe some people to deserve to be in prison. The argument against this is implicitly an argument that no-one deserves to be imprisoned, and such an argument may be refuted by showing a single instance of someone who deserves imprisonment.
bambax 12y ago
For the record, and even if it doesn't help the discussion much, I completely agree with everything you're saying! ;-)

by MrJagil 12y ago

Dylan16807 12y ago

'deserves to be in prison' does not imply 'deserves terrible living conditions' So most of your comment is wasted. As far as whether punishment 'makes sense', that depends on what moral system you use. I wouldn't treat it as so obvious.

MrJagil 12y ago
'deserves to be in prison' does not imply 'deserves terrible living conditions' Yes it does. "deserves" very much alludes to revenge, not rehabilitation. "As far as whether punishment 'makes sense', that depends on what moral system you use. I wouldn't treat it as so obvious." Everything depends on everything; could you elaborate? Just to further the discussion a bit. Being a deterrent has nothing to do with morals, which I see as the main argument for punishment so I'm curious where you're getting at.
- Dylan16807 12y ago
  >Yes it does. "deserves" very much alludes to revenge, not rehabilitation. Possibly revenge. You might want nobody to ever face that person again, etc. Even if it's revenge that doesn't mean you want them to suffer in any particular way. Take away their freedom and turn them into an inert ignorable abstract in a box somewhere. You could stick them in an average motel room and the result would be the same. >could you elaborate? Just as an example, Christianity is pretty big on the concept of retribution. While it does say that it's God's job rather than man's, that doesn't change that it declares bad people deserve punishment independent of the deterrence factor.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > Just as an example, Christianity is pretty big on the concept of retribution. That's...debatable, and varies considerably between different approaches to Christianity, even within individual denominations/sects. > While it does say that it's God's job rather than man's, that doesn't change that it declares bad people deserve punishment independent of the deterrence factor. This is only true of Christianity in general if you define "bad people" extremely broadly; Christianity in general holds that essentially infinite punishment is deserved by (or, in some formulations, the natural consequence of) sin, of which all humans [0] are guilty. Christianity is -- in pretty much all formulations -- very much about God eliminating this deserved punishment or bearing (through Christ) in the place of sinners this natural cost. So, one could argue at least as convincingly (if not more) that the central theme of Christianity is refraining from retribution even where it is "deserved" as one could argue that "Christianity is pretty big on the concept of retribution". [0] with either 1 or 2 (exactly, not as a figurative form for "a small number") exceptions, ever
    - Dylan16807 12y ago
      I am intentionally being very broad, yes. I'm only trying to support my claim that 'deserving' punishment depends on your moral system. Maybe I should focus on Judaism? I'm really not trying to get into any specific systems. >refraining from retribution That's very true, but the important thing here is that it's deserved in the first place.
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        > That's very true, but the important thing here is that it's deserved in the first place. I don't think that's the important thing here; I think that whether it is appropriate for any person to exact it is at least as important in discussing whether punishment (which is an action) "makes sense". Even if a cost is viewed as earned within a moral system, if that moral system equally holds that it is immoral for any person to impose that cost on the one that deserves it, retributive punishment does not make sense in that moral system.
lotsofcows 12y ago
"'deserves to be in prison' does not imply 'deserves terrible living conditions'" - It might not, but that is what this article is about. His comments are entirely appropriate. "makes sense" has nothing to do with morality. It's to do with likely outcomes and cost. Also, if your "morality" is based on revenge, it's not moral.

logicchains 12y ago

>Using Breivik as an example does not further the discussion though, as it is such an extreme case. I was supporting the grandparent post's suggestion that maybe some people to deserve to be in prison. The argument against this is implicitly an argument that no-one deserves to be imprisoned, and such an argument may be refuted by showing a single instance of someone who deserves imprisonment.

bambax 12y ago

For the record, and even if it doesn't help the discussion much, I completely agree with everything you're saying! ;-)