Joanna
andie nachgeborenen wrote:
>OK, I have looked up the article on Marx and
>Retribution, which is by Jeffrie Murphy (not Jeffrey
>Reiman, as I misremembered) in PPA, reprinted in
>Cohen, Nagel, & Scanlon, Marx, Justice & History,
>Princeton 1980. If we are going to get Marxological
>here, we should look at the text where Marx actually
>discusses the issue.
>
>According to Murphy, and I think he is right, because
>I know Marx's writing pretty well and cannot recall
>any other discussion of the topic directly, his only
>extended treatment of punishment in criminal law is
>the article "Capital Punishment," NY Daily Tribune, 18
>Feb 1853. This is mature Marx, not early Marx, and may
>be said to reflect a fairlt considered view.
>
>In this piece, Marx says mainly two things that Murphy
>expands to modern philosophy essay length -- not that
>convincingly, in my view. I mean I think a beter job
>could be done, not that Murphy's ideas are bad in
>outline.
>
>OK, Marx says, (a) that the _only_ theory of
>punishment worthy of the name is Hegel's retributive
>theory, that Punishment is the right of the criminal
>that represents the act of his own will, and (b) that
>there is "something specious" about this theory in a
>class-divided society where (for all the reasons Marx
>set forth in his critique of Hegel's Philosophy of
>Right and his theory of the state as a class
>instrument), it is not reasonable to think of the
>state as representing the will of the criminal -- at
>least the poor criminal.
>
>Two points. One is that this endorses retributivism as
>the correct theory of punishment for a worker's state,
>where presumably the laws _would_ represent the will
>of all the people. (b) In capitalist retributivism
>would still apply without any speciousness to the
>crimes of the bourgeoisie, whose will the state
>largely represents, according to Marx.
>
>So, Marx is more on my side than yours on this. He
>might have been inconsistent with his won premises. I
>have argued that in other contexts. But we have to be
>clear: Marx does not reject retributivism. He rather
>worries about its full applicability in class society.
>If we are worried about Marx's views, that is where we
>must start.
>
>jks
>
>--- Ted Winslow <egwinslow at rogers.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Justin wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>The point that thae anti-retributivists on the
>>>
>>>
>>lists
>>
>>
>>>are not geting is that the idea that those who do
>>>
>>>
>>ill
>>
>>
>>>should be made to suffer is not an endorsement of
>>>howling mob violence or torture or perpetual
>>>inaceration under bright lights.
>>>
>>>
>>This has nothing to do with the argument I pointed
>>to. It derives the
>>unreasonableness of any form of making others suffer
>>retributively from
>>assumptions about human being. Those assumptions
>>are found in the
>>passages from Marx I quoted to demonstrate the
>>difference between
>>Marx's assumptions and Arrow's.
>>
>>How can they be made to produce a justification for
>>making others
>>suffer retributively i.e. how can the assumption
>>that rational
>>self-consciousness would desire a life creating and
>>appropriating
>>beauty and truth within relations of mutual
>>recognition justify any
>>form of retributively inflicting suffering?
>>
>>Ted
>>
>>___________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
>
>
>
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
>http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>.
>
>
>