The two buttons

[ADigitalArtist]

I say the same to you.

I don't see how. A system of justice that is functional and not self-serving is the antithesis of pointless. And one that bases its virtue on the help v harm qualities it brings rather than tossing that all out the window for end justifies the means is the antithesis of immoral.

 

[Koldo]

We'll just have to agree to disagree, I suppose. I've done my best to tell you what my views are, and my views, unlike yours, so far as I am able to tell from what you write, do not tend towards retributive "justice."

It's alright. We don't have to agree on everything. And what I really wanted on this topic wasn't really to convince anyone but rather to expose my point of view and hear other points of view.

How I came to feel this way, I can't tell, I can just tell you that I have learned that forgiveness on my part works far, far better for me than any punishment meeted out by men or gods.

In fact, I was a very badly battered child, nearly killed twice by my stepfather before I was 7, and then lived the rest of my childhood in the Children's Aid, too messed up by then ever to be adopted, or even fostered for any length of time. I know people who went through much, much less than that, and yet have needed years of "therapy" to deal with their trauma. I learned that maybe the people who hurt me were possibly victims, in one way or another, themselves. And I have completely forgiven. I do not carry that weight with me, and it has left me mentally healthy and at peace with myself and the world. If I could rain down punishment on that stepfather, I would not do it. I have no need, nor even desire, to do it.

If I have not convinced you, well, that's okay, because neither have you convinced me. As I said, we must agree to disagree.

What might work better for a given individual is not necessarily what is better socially though. This is why punishing someone shouldn't depend on the victim's desires. This is actually how the law often works right now, not that I am using this to say that this is the correct way though.

 

[oldbadger]

Sure. Here it is, in the bolded part:



You have said you wouldn't press either button because it wouldn't make much of a difference in the large scale of things. Have you changed your mind?

No!
Your button was going to remove one top criminal from crime.
Pointless!

But I believe in deterring crime and loss, but more far reaching than extending punishment to one.

 

[Koldo]

I don't see how. A system of justice that is functional and not self-serving is the antithesis of pointless. And one that bases its virtue on the help v harm qualities it brings rather than tossing that all out the window for end justifies the means is the antithesis of immoral.

You treat justice as a disposable virtue. You throw it out of the window the very moment it becomes inconvenient to achieve your utilitarian world view, because nothing else matters. Treating justice this way is immoral.

And it is pointless because a disposable virtue is no virtue at all. It is only paying lip service to pretend you truly value justice, but you don't.

 

[Koldo]

No!
Your button was going to remove one top criminal from crime.
Pointless!

But I believe in deterring crime and loss, but more far reaching than extending punishment to one.

Do you agree you are being inconsistent by saying you would help someone even if it was pointless in the large scale of things?

If not, please explain.

 

[oldbadger]

Do you agree you are being inconsistent by saying you would help someone even if it was pointless in the large scale of things?

If not, please explain.

But you don't want to help anyone. You want to punish them.
That's just not good.

And I would help a single person even though it won't make a huge difference. I can think of hundreds of incidents where I was involved in helping single offenders, actually.

Thirty years ago a National food market chain had a policy of NOT punishing or banning certain shop thieves. In fact these same thieves were invited to come to the services reception in future where they would receive assistance with their selections. See if you can work that one out.

 

[Koldo]

But you don't want to help anyone. You want to punish them.
That's just not good.

And I would help a single person even though it won't make a huge difference. I can think of hundreds of incidents where I was involved in helping single offenders, actually.

Explain how this is not a double standard.

Thirty years ago a National food market chain had a policy of NOT punishing or banning certain shop thieves. In fact these same thieves were invited to come to the services reception in future where they would receive assistance with their selections. See if you can work that one out.

What do you mean by 'certain shop thieves'? Please do elaborate.

 

[oldbadger]

Explain how this is not a double standard.

Explain how it is!

What do you mean by 'certain shop thieves'? Please do elaborate.

Shop thieves selected, chosen, by the food market ....
You're lost, I can see!
It's just common sense if you have the right mindset. A good clue us that huge National Supermarkets at that time thought carefully before they took action against certain shop thieves.

Some they called the police ...
Some they banned.
Some they banned and sued.
Some they invited to return and have help with their selections.

Wow! A quadruple standard!
Think of that!
Now let's see if you can figure that out. It could help your future ideas if you can sort this.

But in any event, what would you do with shop thieves?

 

[danieldemol]

Sure, but I wouldn't call this person evil for doing this. Would you? Should people who do evil not be held responsible for their choices even if they were done of their volition?

I don't know enough to know it was simply a matter of free will, and I'm doubtful you do either.

But I see life imprisonment as holding them responsible anyway, so to answer your question hypothetically and by way of technicality yes I do believe they should be held responsible, although I have no problem keeping them alive where practical to do so in case new research down the track reveals it was due to some defect and not completely of their own volition.

 

[Koldo]

Explain how it is!

The underlying principle of what you have said first was: I won't do X since it doesn't make much of a difference in the large scale.

'X' being 'pressing one of the buttons'.

Then I have asked you if you apply this principle everywhere such as when it comes down to helping people. You have said you don't.

If you don't use a principle the same way across the board, you are using a double standard.

Shop thieves selected, chosen, by the food market ....
You're lost, I can see!
It's just common sense if you have the right mindset. A good clue us that huge National Supermarkets at that time thought carefully before they took action against certain shop thieves.

Some they called the police ...
Some they banned.
Some they banned and sued.
Some they invited to return and have help with their selections.

Wow! A quadruple standard!
Think of that!
Now let's see if you can figure that out. It could help your future ideas if you can sort this.

Chosen by what standards?
How do they figure who to ban, who to sue, who to call the police for?

But in any event, what would you do with shop thieves?

It depends on the circumstances. First of all, what was being stolen? Was it food? Is it their first time or are they repeated offenders?

It is not like there must be only one underlying and all-encompassing rule. A justification NEEDS to be made for it not be completely arbitrary and unfair though.

 

[oldbadger]

The underlying principle of what you have said first was: I won't do X since it doesn't make much of a difference in the large scale.

'X' being 'pressing one of the buttons'.

Then I have asked you if you apply this principle everywhere such as when it comes down to helping people. You have said you don't.

If you don't use a principle the same way across the board, you are using a double standard.



Chosen by what standards?
How do they figure who to ban, who to sue, who to call the police for?



It depends on the circumstances. First of all, what was being stolen? Was it food? Is it their first time or are they repeated offenders?

It is not like there must be only one underlying and all-encompassing rule. A justification NEEDS to be made for it not be completely arbitrary and unfair though.

The Supermarket's policy was its policy. It's not for you to pick about with. But you've already figured that various criteria were recognised for any action to be taken.

That is besides the point!
My point is that you have moaned on about dual standards and I have been able to show FOUR different reactions to 'Shopfeft' situations.

Some were deters, some were for punishment, some for restitution. This means that your singular choice can't be reasonable, surely.??

I have enjoyed our conversation, will gladly give you last word, and sign off on this one......

 

[Koldo]

The Supermarket's policy was its policy. It's not for you to pick about with.

I am not sure what this is supposed to mean.
I am entirely free to say that someone's actions are unfair or fair, for example.

But you've already figured that various criteria were recognised for any action to be taken.

That is besides the point!
My point is that you have moaned on about dual standards and I have been able to show FOUR different reactions to 'Shopfeft' situations.

I am not sure what you intend to mean by this.
First because it is not a double standard if you show a justification for applying a different standard, which is what I have asked for.
Second because even if this is a case for an actual double standard I don't see how it helps your point. It is like pointing out someone is also guilty of doing the very same thing you are guilty of doing. So what...?

Some were deters, some were for punishment, some for restitution. This means that your singular choice can't be reasonable, surely.??

Ok, so assuming you were given complete control over the situation, what would you have done with the most evil person in the world? What else do you have in mind?

I have enjoyed our conversation, will gladly give you last word, and sign off on this one......

Very well. Feel free to do so.

 

[Koldo]

I don't know enough to know it was simply a matter of free will, and I'm doubtful you do either.

I am not a believer in free will, and I see it as completely irrelevant to attribute responsibility.
It doesn't matter if someone could have done otherwise, it only matters if it was done according to someone's own volition without being coerced by someone else. Let me put it like this: If a lion bites your leg, I don't care if it had free will by then, I only care that it bite your leg.

But I see life imprisonment as holding them responsible anyway, so to answer your question hypothetically and by way of technicality yes I do believe they should be held responsible, although I have no problem keeping them alive where practical to do so in case new research down the track reveals it was due to some defect and not completely of their own volition.

Sure. What do you think should be done if we got it all wrong in that case? How do we achieve justice?

 

[danieldemol]

Sure. What do you think should be done if we got it all wrong in that case? How do we achieve justice?

Since my concept of justice does not = revenge we could then ask, is the defect repairable, in which case if it is we could hit the square button and return the safely rehabilitated offender back into society, and since the universe is to blame for the defect we acknowledge you can't sue the universe, so instead governments can compensate the bereaved for their loss and the healing process can begin.

On the other hand if the defect is not repairable we acknowledge that you can't sue the universe which is to blame, but the offender must remain safely isolated for the protection of society, so there would be no compensation to the offender even though its not their fault, but at least they get to live, and have meals/shelter etc provided for them.

 

[Koldo]

Since my concept of justice does not = revenge

Just to clarify this point: I also do not equal justice to revenge. Revenges are generally not just. What you probably mean to say is that revenges are never just. That's where we would disagree.

we could then ask, is the defect repairable, in which case if it is we could hit the square button and return the safely rehabilitated offender back into society, and since the universe is to blame for the defect we acknowledge you can't sue the universe, so instead governments can compensate the bereaved for their loss and the healing process can begin.

On the other hand if the defect is not repairable we acknowledge that you can't sue the universe which is to blame, but the offender must remain safely isolated for the protection of society, so there would be no compensation to the offender even though its not their fault, but at least they get to live, and have meals/shelter etc provided for them.

I think there was some miscommunication here.
I have asked you how you would achieve justice on cases of wrong convinction. But reading this part of your post I think you understood my question in some other way. Can you confirm? Did you understand my question as if I were asking you how you would achieve justice against criminals in general?

 

[danieldemol]

Just to clarify this point: I also do not equal justice to revenge. Revenges are generally not just. What you probably mean to say is that revenges are never just. That's where we would disagree.

No I do not say revenge is never just, some people seem to get rehabilitated by it in minor cases.

I think there was some miscommunication here.
I have asked you how you would achieve justice on cases of wrong convinction. But reading this part of your post I think you understood my question in some other way. Can you confirm? Did you understand my question as if I were asking you how you would achieve justice against criminals in general?

Ok i misunderstood the question. I would simply provide them with financial compensation for the lost years. I know of no other way since we can't go back in a time machine to restore the lost time

 

[Koldo]

No I do not say revenge is never just, some people seem to get rehabilitated by it in minor cases.

Then our disagreement would be over whether justice has anything to do with rehab.

Ok i misunderstood the question. I would simply provide them with financial compensation for the lost years. I know of no other way since we can't go back in a time machine to restore the lost time

You could, for example, speak in favor of punishing the ones that are guilty of sending an innocent person to jail.

 

[danieldemol]

You could, for example, speak in favor of punishing the ones that are guilty of sending an innocent person to jail.

Sure, if they had malicious intention in sending them to jail as opposed to making human error which is more likely given the prosecutor has to make their case before a judge and jury.

 

[McBell]

If nothing else, this thread does thoroughly demonstrate just how subjective the word "justice" is....

 

[Willamena]

For the sake of this topic, you have been granted a joystick with two buttons, the triangle button and the square button. Now here is how it works:

You can press only one button. And not more than once.

If you press the triangle button, the most evil criminal in the world, in your perspective, dies. Right away.

If you press the square button, the most evil criminal in the world, in your perspective, gets a complete change of mind. This person will never again commit any evil action and shall not be further punished for any of the past crimes.

What button would you press and why?

Here is my, most certainly, unpopular opinion: I would quickly press the triangle button. I will take justice over recovery any and every time.

Here is my perspective on justice:

When it is possible to repair the damage caused, justice is better served by doing so.

When it is not possible to repair the damage caused, justice is better served by punishing the perpetrator. Plus, there must be proportionality between the crime and the punishment.

This only says that what you consider 'justice' to be is to do unto others what they have done to you.