Do people truly deserve punishment?

  • Thread starter Dissident Dan
  • Start date
In summary: But is this really ethical, and is it logical?Can a person really deserve to have something unpleasant done to him/her?In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of deserving punishment and its ethical implications. It questions whether it is logical to believe that someone deserves to suffer and argues that this belief is often fueled by personal grudges rather than a sense of justice or societal benefit. The speakers also discuss the difference between punishment for the sake of justice and punishment for desired effects, and whether punishment can be its own end. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the complexity of the concept of deserving and how it is often used to justify inflicting suffering on others.
  • #1
Dissident Dan
238
2
We often take delight in the sufferings of others when we have grudges against them or we thing that they have done something to "deserve" it. But is this really ethical, and is it logical?

Can a person really deserve to have something unpleasant done to him/her?

To a materialistic, I think that the answer should be "No," because a person's actions are inevitably the result of physical forces.
And for nonmaterialists, you must still ask why another person should suffer pain because of what he/she's done. Remember that deserving is the claim, and must be backed up, not the other way around. The default state would be a lack. To make a judgment, such as saying that some one deserves something, you must make the link.

I would also like to add that I think that punishment has a place in societies where it has useful effects, such as changing the perpetraitor's behavior and serving as a deterrent. But this is different from saying that someone "deserves" punishment.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I would also like to add that I think that punishment has a place in societies where it has useful effects, such as changing the perpetraitor's behavior and serving as a deterrent. But this is different from saying that someone "deserves" punishment.

Why is it different? You're still describing some sort of justice, so the term deserves is still appropriate in this context.
 
  • #3
Your reaoning is circular and disjointed.

Materialism does not imply value concepts such as deserving and undeserving, good or bad. These are all ethical issues that arise only within the context free will and determism. Is a chemical reaction good or bad? Is murder good or bad? The stance of materialism that there is a real materialistic universe outside of our minds that obeys the laws of physics says nothing about such ethical issues.

Demonstrably the concepts of punishment and deserving are social concepts used to enforce both the explicite and implicite goals of societies. Over time these ideas evolve whether the society in question promotes free will or determism.
 
  • #4
When I said materalism, I meant believing in only physical, mathematical interaction, not just that there is an outside world.

So, in such a materalistic school of thought, since a person's actions are inevitable and not under the control of the person, deserving punishment is an illogical judgment.

Hurkyl, the two are completely different. One is remniscent of revenge, while the other is about have an orderly, peaceful society. With the second one, it's not about the punishment, but the effects of the punishment, while saying that someone deservers something is a statement concerned only with inflicting suffering upon someone.
 
  • #5
I disagree entirely. Neither is concerned with inflicting suffering for the sake of inflicting suffering. The only difference between the two is that the former derives its idea of justice from some ethical / moral code, and the latter derives its idea of justice from an attempt at social engineering. Both only inflict punishment according to the concept of justice. (And neither are immune from the possibility that some would take pleasure in seeing justice served or feel the need to take justice into their own hands)
 
  • #6
"An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind."
-Ghandi
 
  • #7
Originally posted by Hurkyl
I disagree entirely. Neither is concerned with inflicting suffering for the sake of inflicting suffering.

Well, that contrasts with my experiences with what people mean by someone deserving it. Just like many people would like to see others than have wronged them hurt, regardless of social effect, many people would also like to see people they consider "bad" suffer, regardless of social effect, because they "deserved it." At least, according to my observations.
 
  • #8
Well, when I have been saying neither, I was using as the two cases the ethical extension to justice and your punishment for desired effect cases.

You appeared to be projecting a third case (petty desire for revenge) upon the ethical extension to justice, so I was defending it.


In any case:

Deserve - to be worthy, fit, or suitable for some reward or requital


This is what I think when I hear the term "deserve". You deserve something iff you satisfy some appropriate condition. It's the correct term to use whether that condition comes from ethical justice, desired effects, or petty revenge.
 
  • #9
If "justice" is something that is not concerned with the effects/social engineering, then I can only correlate it to revenge (not exactly the same, but similar), in which case I consider it unethical.

I the case of being concerned with the effects, I prefer not to say that a person deserves, because that has connotations. I would rather say, "The situation warrants." Not only a different verb, but a different subject, as well.

Going by the explicit, dictionary definition, you are correct in saying that the word "deserve" fits all the situations. But I was thinking about it in terms of connotations and what, it seems to me, people usually think when using the word.
 
  • #10
Do you think it is possible to deserve being hurt, just because "he deserves it", not because of some other goal that one wishes to accomplish through the punishment? Can punishment be its own end?
 
  • #11
No, I don't think so. I've never heard anyone suggest punishment should occur simply on its own merit; it's always for some sort of reason. E.G. Because it's the "Right thing to do" (some sort of justice), because you hope it will cause someone to "learn their lesson", for some sort of pleasure/satisfaction (getting revenge, or possible more sadistic tastes), or as a means of control.

(Of course, I'm not suggesting all of these are reasonable justifications!)


I'm sure it's possible that someone could beileve punishment is its own end, but I am having much difficulty imagining it.
 
  • #12
Originally posted by Dissident Dan
We often take delight in the sufferings of others when we have grudges against them or we thing that they have done something to "deserve" it. But is this really ethical, and is it logical?


Equity. It is just and proper that good people be rewarded and evil people be punished. The magnitude of the reward or punishment should be proportionate to the magnitude of the good or bad deed. Equity is not something that exists in random nature, but it is something that we as a species long for and something that we as a society work to create on nearly every level. The desire for equity is essential to healthy society and it would be as immoral not to punish a wrong-doer as it would be to ignore the heroism of another individual.

Can a person really deserve to have something unpleasant done to him/her?

Yes.

To a materialistic, I think that the answer should be "No," because a person's actions are inevitably the result of physical forces.

Not this materialist. In a materialistic world it is all the more important that evil-doers are punished because this too is one of those external forces. It has nothing to do with physics, free will, rehabilitation, or deterrence - it has only to do with the kind of world we wish to build. And a world where people can rape, murder, and so on without being punished is not one that any normal healthy human being should be willing to tolerate. Such exemplifies a lack of empathy for the victim and a lack of desire for equity in general.

And for nonmaterialists, you must still ask why another person should suffer pain because of what he/she's done. Remember that deserving is the claim, and must be backed up, not the other way around. The default state would be a lack. To make a judgment, such as saying that some one deserves something, you must make the link.

link = one harms others, one gets harm. "Deserve" is not an objective state, it is a judgement, made by others as part of the society that humans desire to create as an act of sheer will. It needs no other justification.

I would also like to add that I think that punishment has a place in societies where it has useful effects, such as changing the perpetraitor's behavior and serving as a deterrent. But this is different from saying that someone "deserves" punishment.

Yes that's true. Social engineering and rehabilitation has nothing to do with "justice". Those things are nice, but Justice should remain a part of our society.
 

1. What is punishment?

Punishment is a consequence or penalty given to someone who has committed a wrongdoing or broken a rule. It is intended to discourage the person from repeating the behavior and to serve as a deterrent for others.

2. What is the purpose of punishment?

The purpose of punishment is to maintain social order, to protect individuals and society from harm, and to promote justice and fairness.

3. Who decides what punishment is deserved?

In most cases, the legal system and society as a whole determine what punishment is deserved for a particular offense. This may vary depending on the severity of the crime and the cultural or societal norms of a particular community.

4. Is punishment effective in preventing future crimes?

There is ongoing debate about the effectiveness of punishment in preventing future crimes. Some research suggests that certain forms of punishment, such as incarceration, may not be as effective as alternative methods of rehabilitation and treatment.

5. What are the ethical considerations surrounding punishment?

Some ethical considerations surrounding punishment include the use of proportionality (ensuring the punishment fits the crime), the use of rehabilitation and restorative justice approaches, and the potential for punishment to escalate into retribution and perpetuate cycles of violence.

Similar threads

Replies
67
Views
10K
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
28
Views
9K
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
25
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
10K
  • General Discussion
Replies
18
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
Replies
8
Views
4K
Back
Top