The Golden Rule and the Punishment of Crime.

[Jayhawker Soule]

If the golden rule is actually valid, then how can you put a criminal in prison or put them to death?

Seriously?

 

[dust1n]

Seriously?

Yup. How does a criminal justice system work premised on the Golden Rule, exactly?

...Ugh. Why don't you make some more threads then, with awesome stuff so there is something to talk about other than whether God exists or not, why Islam is or is not evil, etc...

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

Yup. How does a criminal justice system work premised on the Golden Rule, exactly?

...Ugh. Why don't you make some more threads then, with awesome stuff so there is something to talk about other than whether God exists or not, why Islam is or is not evil, etc...

To be murdered is the ultimate denial of human right , to face the death penalty is also the ultimate denial of human rights , guess the primitive legal system you refer to still demands an element of revenge.
Are several kinds of murderer .

 

[dust1n]

To be murdered is the ultimate denial of human right , to face the death penalty is also the ultimate denial of human rights , guess the primitive legal system you refer to still demands an element of revenge.
Are several kinds of murderer .

What if a property owner shot me during a non-armed robbery?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yup. How does a criminal justice system work premised on the Golden Rule, exactly?

By not playing childish gotcha games with the 'you' found in "as you would have" ...

 

[dust1n]

By not playing childish gotcha games with the 'you' found in "as you would have" ...

Correct my error in the perception of "you."

 

[Etritonakin]

Putting a criminal in prison should be toward protecting others.
Nothing can be done about a murder, for example, but something can be done about someone who is likely to commit another murder.

The "system" should be toward corrections. It should do the best thing for all -and favor the innocent.
It should consider as much as possible and create the best possible situation in the future.

We have a "correctional" system -but it doesn't actually correct much -for many reasons.

The death penalty does no good as a punishment toward correction of an individual (who will be dead) -and is not much of a deterrent to violent types.
It might satisfy a need for vengeance of loved ones of a victim, but that isn't really a good thing.
The life for life mentality is somewhat of a deterrent -but doesn't really make anything right.
If the death penalty has any place, it would be to remove someone from the world if there was absolutely no good reason for them to be in it.
(The death penalty in ancient Israel was about more than crime and punishment -and was used to remove certain things from Israel by removing certain people in preparation for the new covenant).

The golden rule is based on fairness, honesty, righteousness, etc. -not on human nature or individual humans.
To apply it correctly, a person should want others to do what is right to them for the good of all -even if it is not pleasant.


Let's say there was a minor car accident....

A fair person would want another to hold them responsible if they were at fault -because it creates the best possible future. An unfair person would want to avoid responsibility.

The "golden rule" is similar to the commandments.

The commandments would create a paradise -if everyone kept them.

If everyone kept the golden rule, there would be no need for a criminal justice system.

Followers of Christ are to live as citizens of a perfect world -even though it has limited effect on the present world, because not everyone does so.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

If the golden rule is actually valid, then how can you put a criminal in prison or put them to death?

Because the golden rule is predicated on treating others fairly, and thus earning the right to being treated fairly in return.

Interpreting it as a simplistic, face-value, semantical statement allows for scenarios that are incongruous with the inherent implications necessary to make the idea of the golden rule consistent or even meaningful.

In other words, a murderer who would use the golden rule as a reason for not being punished would exclude themselves from any meaningful application of the principle, and anyone who consistently applied the principle to themselves wouldn't expect to not get punished for committing a crime.

 

[allfoak]

If the golden rule is actually valid, then how can you put a criminal in prison or put them to death?

Because an eye for an eye is also true.

There must be consequences for all actions for life to be valid.
We all understand this intuitively.
There has to be balance in life.

This means that both an eye for an eye and the golden rule have to be incorporated into our thinking.
If you live a life of good deeds then life will reward you.
Live a life without regard to it's Laws you will eventually face the fires of purification.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Because the golden rule is predicated on treating others fairly, and thus earning the right to being treated fairly in return.

Interpreting it as a simplistic, face-value, semantical statement allows for scenarios that are incongruous with the inherent implications necessary to make the idea of the golden rule consistent or even meaningful.

In other words, a murderer who would use the golden rule as a reason for not being punished would exclude themselves from any meaningful application of the principle, and anyone who consistently applied the principle to themselves wouldn't expect to not get punished for committing a crime.

Excellent.

 

[dust1n]

Because the golden rule is predicated on treating others fairly, and thus earning the right to being treated fairly in return.

Then why would you need the "rule" at all? If it's necessary to expect treating others "fairly" to thus earning the right be treated "fairly" in return, then why the rule to illustrate anything, since it extrapolates from common sense notions of reciprocation, into a vague direction one should applied to their life, but in no actual literal way?

Interpreting it as a simplistic, face-value, semantical statement allows for scenarios that are incongruous with the inherent implications necessary to make the idea of the golden rule consistent or even meaningful.

So taking the rule at face value allows for scenarios that are inconsistent with the inherent implications needed to make the idea consistent or even meaningful? Yeah... that's the problem.

But, how do you interpret it (if not at face value) that makes it consistent or even meaningful? That's the premise of the thread...

In other words, a murderer who would use the golden rule as a reason for not being punished would exclude themselves from any meaningful application of the principle, and anyone who consistently applied the principle to themselves wouldn't expect to not get punished for committing a crime.

So the application of the principle is only valid when it is "meaningful?" Right, which is my objection in the first place? All people have treated others at some point in time in a manner that they themselves would likely not like to be treated? Who has consistently applied the rule to themselves? The basis of everyone acting on this rule has nothing to do with how others actually wanted to be treated, and really has more to do with how others perceive how someone wants to be treated.