On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 01:43:03 -0700 (PDT) andie nachgeborenen
<andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com> writes:
> No, Bill, you are wrong, because the Iraqis in general (and indeed
> the Saudis and the Afghan in general( had nothing to do with 9/11.
> It was only a specific group of people around al Qaida.
>
> You miss the crucial point of retributivism, and one of its
> well-known advantages as against consequentialism, which is that
> retributivism explains why it is wrong to punish people for
> something that they have not done. It is a signal difficulty with
> consequentialism that it may purport to offer a justification for
> "punishing" or at least doing harm to the innocent on the grounds
> that so doing may produce social benefits.
>
> Thus, if randomly framing and executing (or, if you prefer, jailing
> for a long period) the occasional innocent may deter the kind of
> crime for which the person is framed, consequentialism may counsel
> that the occasional innocent be framed and executed or imprisoned.
> But that is wrong, and retributivism tells that it is wrong because
> the innocent person has done nothing that acrually deserved or
> merited punishment.
>
> It is precisely retributivism that rules out colective punishment,
> and consequentialism that in principle admits it. Consequentialists
> contort themselves with implausible explanations of why framing and
> harming the innocent is wrong (the deception will be discovered,
> etc.), but they cannot say the one thing that retributivists can say
> which is the obvious explanation: those people should not be
> punished because they are innocent.
BTW Professor Michael Moore of the University of Illinois College of Law has authored a book that defends a retributivist account of the criminal law, *Placing Blame: A General Theory of the Criminal Law*, within the philosophical framework of a naturalistic determinism.
My friend, Tom Clark, has a critique of that book at http://world.std.com/~twc/criminal.htm#AgainstRetribution.
Justin as a retributivist makes much of our intuition that it is morally wrong to punish the innocent, even if such punishment were to have socially beneficial effects through the deterrence of potential offenders. Thus Clark writes:
"The natural function of praise, blame, retaliation, reward and other morality-invoking emotions and responses, what philosopher Peter Strawson in his classic paper "Freedom and Resentment" dubbed "reactive attitudes," is not difficult to discern: it is to shape behavior in ways advantageous to both individuals and societies. Retaliation against an aggressor that has harmed oneself or one’s loved ones undoubtedly serves to deter or thwart the aggression, so the disposition to retaliate embodied in retributive emotions such as resentment and rage is an essential characteristic of creatures who make the evolutionary cut. But equally, the disposition not to harm those who have done us no harm is just as important, since the advantages of punishment only accrue if it is selectively applied. Thus the strong intuition of fairness which says, in essence, "don’t ever punish the innocent" can be seen as on a par with other reactive, morality-invoking attitudes, something deeply built into us by virtue of its natural utility in helping to distribute retaliatory harms, so that punishment is vigorously applied to deter aggressors and defectors and vigorously withheld in order to build affinity and cooperation. And on the positive end, we are built to respond with praise and other rewards to behavior we want reinforced. Thus the direction and depth of our reactive attitudes and moral responses track the type of behavior we are responding to, and help encourage or discourage it, depending on our interests.6"
Jim F.
>
> Bill Bartlett <billbartlett at enterprize.net.au> wrote:
> > The Evening Standard
>
> > "There's a picture of the World Trade Center hanging up by my bed
> and I
> >keep one in my Kevlar [flak jacket]. Every time I feel sorry for
> these
> >people I look at that. I think, 'They hit us at home and, now, it's
> our turn.' I
> >don't want to say payback but, you know, it's pretty much payback."
>
> I suppose if revenge is an acceptable reason to kill someone, then
> its hard to fault the notion of collective punishment. An Arab
> killed some of my people, my people are entitled to take revenge by
> killing some Arabs...
>
> Collective punishment is the philosophy of Bin Laden too of course.
> Some of the apologists for revenge might care to explain the
> philosophical basis? I imagine its something along the lines that
> "We are entitled to revenge, this entitlement stands even if revenge
> against the actual individuals responsible is impractical. Hence,
> taking revenge against the next best thing, the next of kin, or
> someone of the same race or religion is entirely justified."
>
> But perhaps I don't fully understand the "logic" of hate?
>
> Bill Bartlett
> Bracknell Tas
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!