<DIV>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. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>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. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>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.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>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 <EM>innocent. </EM><BR><BR><B><I>Bill Bartlett <billbartlett@enterprize.net.au></I></B> wrote:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">> The Evening Standard<BR><BR>> "There's a picture of the World Trade Center hanging up by my bed and I<BR>>keep one in my Kevlar [flak jacket]. Every time I feel sorry for these<BR>>people I look at that. I think, 'They hit us at home and, now, it's our turn.' I<BR>>don't want to say payback but, you know, it's pretty much payback."<BR><BR>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...<BR><BR>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."<BR><BR>But perhaps I don't fully understand the "logic" of hate?<BR><BR>Bill Bartlett<BR>Bracknell Tas<BR>___________________________________<BR>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk</BLOCKQUOTE><p><hr SIZE=1> Do you Yahoo!?<br> <a href="http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://rd.yahoo.com/evt=1207/*http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/">SBC Yahoo! DSL</a> - Now only $29.95 per month!