Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Hygro, Jun 24, 2019.
All right, what is it you've done this time, Hygro?
"Discipline" forced on other people is usually just punishment.
Avoidance of punishment can be an incentive for "proper" behavior. I've had my car towed more times than I care for because I parked in a spot that had a sign saying "reserved parking only" even though it was 10 at night and they weren't any other cars around and thus a more than ample supply of parking spots, so what was the harm right? Well someone takes that stuff seriously so I guess I have to as well unless I want to shell out towing fees.
Clearly the punishment has not persuaded you to change your behavior.
That's more of a consequence than a punishment IMO.
On the contrary. In my youth I was wild and reckless. After some life experiences I'm now I'm hyper-vigilant about obeying parking rules.
What is a punishment if not a negative consequence imposed by someone else? Someone else took an action that hurt me as a result of my breaking the rules. That is definitely a negative consequence for me.
The action isn't to hurt you, it's to dissuade a behavior.
Cops NEED people like you, they want to dissuade the behavior but not too much. Lawbreakers = revenue.
Punishment would be if they attacked you and said "dont do it again"
Anytime that everything does not go exactly how i want it to, I'm punished.
EDIT: so it's a necessary evil
This discussion really needs a clear definition of punishment. So far I think I can construe three different definitions of punishment being employed in this thread:
1. A reaction to an action deemed reprehensible by someone that causes any sort of harm to the recipient
2. A reaction to an action deemed reprehensible by someone with the specific goal to make the recipient of the action suffer
3. A reaction to an action deemed reprehensible by someone in order to mitigate the suffering of a person or persons whom the action hurt by enacting revenge upon the actor.
Also all this is dependent on the definition of harm being employed. Also on that front different definitions are used from taking away a mobile device to killing the actor. Before these definitional issues are settled, there is little reason to discuss the subject, because all that will happen is people talking past each other.
I would personally side with the 1st definition of punishment being any action that causes some harm to the actor. So taking a phone away is punishment, as is the state murdering the actor, as is a teacher talking to the parents of a kid that is acting out in class.
Do I understand you correctly that you believe that every action that harms another human being is ultimately caused by cultural and economic structures? What do you mean by an "emergent system"? Isn't consciousness an emergent system too?
I don't believe in free will either, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't punish (in the sense of the 1st definition) people that do reprihensible things. The punishment, though, should be proportional to the reprihensible act. Punishment is also not only for the person being punished, but for the people who see other people being punished in order to dissuade them from doing similiar acts.
Is that a bad thing? From the other posts you made, this post in combination with them seems to imply that discipline (not self-discipline) is bad?
Isn't "just punishment is a virtue" circular? That is, if it's just, isn't it by definition virtuous, and vice-versa?
Anyway. I don't agree with punishment as vengeance, but I do believe in deterrence and prevention. I also believe in examining results and that punishment is always a means to an end, never an end in itself, so if it doesn't contribute something, there's no sense in continuing. Things like California's "three strikes" law are just several kinds of stupid.
Punishment always by definition has to have at least an element of disciplinary nature to it, even if it's to discipline others by example.
A complication of mutually subjective social interactions. Everyone kind of seems on board with the principles of deterrence/incapacitation/rehabilitation. Which definitely opens the door far more than wide enough to enable harm and pain and cruelty of various subjectiveness to the punished.
The part we seem skeezy on as society, and it is for society to argue about and tweak course as appropriate, is the atonement aspect. The punishment has to be such that society is willing to take the post-punished back(retributive "fairness" or equity will play a role here, it's part and parcel of understanding people subjectively don't like receiving forced discipline(or whatever the prevarication-word is) that socializes their behavior/capacities). And frankly, we suck at that(it's actually hard). Life imprisonment for a series of actions far less severe than that is pretty dippy. The specter of permanent employment history checks or registries are also indicative of society deeming no possible punishment received is adequate for forgiveness(a deep innate meanness of its own). Punishment that is permanent decoupled from support or incapacitation is an enormous reciepe for fail, increased recidivism and increased punishment. It's cruel and petty and way the hell common for the upstanding to favor explicitly or implicitly.
I consider my desire for vengeance when I'm angry to be a weakness on my part
I fear you might as well consider your desire for calories and oxygen a weakness.
They kind of are weaknesses.
Well, when trying to do hypoxic sets at swim practice I certainly considered my desire for oxygen a weakeness, and these days I do consider my desire for calories a weakness insofar as it leads me to eat like crap
I don't think you'd last long without those desires. I'd just forget to breathe and die immediately.
Ah. Out-pedanticised again!
Oh I forgot
obligatory meme response
mfw I see the title of this thread
Yeah, I'm not sure what I think about atonement and forgiveness. I think it varies with the circumstance, and I think this is one place where criminal justice and interpersonal relations diverge wildly. I don't have kids, but I imagine a parent has to be pretty quick to forgive a child, or it's a trainwreck. If you can't forgive a friend, spouse or partner, that relationship is basically over. otoh, personal forgiveness cannot be a part of the criminal justice system, imo, and therefore atonement can't be, either. Whether or not a victim of a crime decides to forgive the person who wronged them is entirely up to them. A victim of a crime might say, "If the person who wronged me serves their sentence, then I'll go ahead and forgive them", but the criminal justice system cannot consider the victim's forgiveness in its sentencing, because that would be circular (and, frankly, it's none of the court's business whether the victim forgives or not - they certainly can't demand it).
And, forgiveness being the opposite of vengeance, I feel like I'm at least being consistent in saying that vengeance has no place in the criminal justice system, either. (Personally, I don't think vengeance has any place in personal relationships, either. I've never understood the people who want to get back at an ex, for example. Even the bad breakups I've had, I just didn't want to see her again. I didn't want to hurt her or humiliate her, even if I would have crossed the street to avoid talking to her.)
So I guess, right now, I come down like this:
- In personal relationships: Atonement and forgiveness are requisite, or the relationship is irreparably damaged
- In criminal justice: Atonement and forgiveness shouldn't even be part of the conversation
Still thinking about it, though.
Separate names with a comma.