So it's been a while since my latest pseudophilosophical ramble, and I feel like making another one. This time I shall opine on punishment:
It is often said by people that a given individual or group "deserve" punishment, and this is usually a point of contention when such a view is raised in conversation. I counter with the assertion that nothing, good or bad, is ever deserved, objectively, because merit is a value judgment and therefore purely a question of opinion. Instead, the punishment is wished upon the subject in question, and their deserving it is simply the externalization of this wish in the form of a supposedly objective phenomenon.
Now as to the goals of punishment: The threat of punishment of any sort can be, and usual is, employed as a deterrent against unwanted acts. Consistency therefore would require that said punishment be effected. The nature of the punishment may or may not also make it overlap with another function, such as prevention of re-incidence of whatever elicited the punishment (Although whether any given punishment actually fulfills this particular function is another matter altogether). Finally, in the absence of an external reason for punishment such as the aforementioned fulfillment of a pre-established threat, what remains are "internal" reasons that one may have to wish someone punished. Long story short, this amounts to personal gratification, and can easily be observed with a cursory examination of comments rendered unto almost any event perceived as criminal: "He should be killed"; "Someone should hurt her"; "I hope he gets raped in prison"; "She should be thrown out to the streets"; so on and so forth. To make it shorter, a punishment may be necessary for a given goal, or it may be unnecessary, and if unnecessary, it may yet be useful for a given goal. A punishment that is necessary but not useful isn't really all that necessary, and thus the category is a moot point (If it is not useful, then why is it necessary?).
From this follow the results of punishment: If one had threatened with it, and a transgression effected nevertheless, then one may choose to punish and so establish that the threat was genuine, ideally strengthening the deterrent effect of the threat should it remain standing, which ties into the next point; if the punishment has an additional goal (As an example, imprisonment both removes the subject from the environment in which the transgression was committed and provides an extended period of discomfort supposed to instigate an aversion to recidivism), then the punishment is supposed to accomplish that goal as well; if the punishment is neither necessary nor useful for an external goal, then aside from whatever natural consequences the punishment may have (Monetary and/or material loss, physical, psychological and/or emotional suffering, etc), its result is purely the gratification of those who wish to see it effected.
I don't personally claim innocence from this, and don't presume to judge it ethically/morally, as I hold a mostly relativist view of ethics and morality in general (Which doesn't mean I consider myself completely amoral, mind you; I have my own, but it is purely my own), and there have certainly been such people as would provide me with much gratification through their personal misfortune, but it is, I believe, worth keeping in mind that there is no natural law or anything of the sort that decrees punishment as a necessary reaction to anything. You either have a reason for it outside of your own desire, or you wish it purely for your own satisfaction, and if you fall in the latter category, it behooves you to own up to that fact, methinks.
Thoughts? :)
It is often said by people that a given individual or group "deserve" punishment, and this is usually a point of contention when such a view is raised in conversation. I counter with the assertion that nothing, good or bad, is ever deserved, objectively, because merit is a value judgment and therefore purely a question of opinion. Instead, the punishment is wished upon the subject in question, and their deserving it is simply the externalization of this wish in the form of a supposedly objective phenomenon.
Now as to the goals of punishment: The threat of punishment of any sort can be, and usual is, employed as a deterrent against unwanted acts. Consistency therefore would require that said punishment be effected. The nature of the punishment may or may not also make it overlap with another function, such as prevention of re-incidence of whatever elicited the punishment (Although whether any given punishment actually fulfills this particular function is another matter altogether). Finally, in the absence of an external reason for punishment such as the aforementioned fulfillment of a pre-established threat, what remains are "internal" reasons that one may have to wish someone punished. Long story short, this amounts to personal gratification, and can easily be observed with a cursory examination of comments rendered unto almost any event perceived as criminal: "He should be killed"; "Someone should hurt her"; "I hope he gets raped in prison"; "She should be thrown out to the streets"; so on and so forth. To make it shorter, a punishment may be necessary for a given goal, or it may be unnecessary, and if unnecessary, it may yet be useful for a given goal. A punishment that is necessary but not useful isn't really all that necessary, and thus the category is a moot point (If it is not useful, then why is it necessary?).
From this follow the results of punishment: If one had threatened with it, and a transgression effected nevertheless, then one may choose to punish and so establish that the threat was genuine, ideally strengthening the deterrent effect of the threat should it remain standing, which ties into the next point; if the punishment has an additional goal (As an example, imprisonment both removes the subject from the environment in which the transgression was committed and provides an extended period of discomfort supposed to instigate an aversion to recidivism), then the punishment is supposed to accomplish that goal as well; if the punishment is neither necessary nor useful for an external goal, then aside from whatever natural consequences the punishment may have (Monetary and/or material loss, physical, psychological and/or emotional suffering, etc), its result is purely the gratification of those who wish to see it effected.
I don't personally claim innocence from this, and don't presume to judge it ethically/morally, as I hold a mostly relativist view of ethics and morality in general (Which doesn't mean I consider myself completely amoral, mind you; I have my own, but it is purely my own), and there have certainly been such people as would provide me with much gratification through their personal misfortune, but it is, I believe, worth keeping in mind that there is no natural law or anything of the sort that decrees punishment as a necessary reaction to anything. You either have a reason for it outside of your own desire, or you wish it purely for your own satisfaction, and if you fall in the latter category, it behooves you to own up to that fact, methinks.
Thoughts? :)
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire