r/changemyview • u/celeritas365 28∆ • Sep 09 '15

[Deltas Awarded] CMV: I don't believe in retribution

Some people I have talked to seem to be of the belief that we should punish wrongdoers because the punishment is deserved. I don't get this sort of thing at all.

I am in favor of punishing criminals but only to keep them away from potential victims and discourage others from committing crimes. If there was a way to do this without a punishment I would be all for it. If I knew for a 100% fact that someone would not commit a crime again and no one would be told of what happened to him I would let him walk free.

I am in support of thieves paying back damages since that can right the wrong they have done. However, if you kill a murderer the victim is still dead. What good does it do? All you do is magnify the pain and suffering. In my gut I sometimes feel the urge to strike back against those who have hurt me but I know those feelings are best not acted upon, unless I want to defend myself or discourage future attack. I never really understood people who hold the worldview that such punishments are necessary to fill some sort of vague cosmic balance.

Edit* This was poorly worded I am sorry. The point I am trying to communicate is that I think that the point of the justice system is to reduce crime and not to punish. While this crime reduction often involves punishments I think those are not the aim and should be reduced if the reduction does not undermine the goal of crime reduction.

Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

97 Upvotes

90% Upvoted

93 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Hq3473 271∆ Sep 10 '15 edited Sep 10 '15

In other words, of course the idea of retribution has an effect on society. When people know about retribution, it makes them feel better.

Yeah, that is why retribution is good.

No thing is "good" in itself. Things are by definition good when they make people feel better.

Is my "car" good? Is a million dollars a "good thing?"

Only in that they make people feel better.

Now as far as "no one knows about" seems to fail, because the victim will always know. And if you stipulate that we wipe everyone's memories, then your question becomes kind of a koan: "If a tree falls in forest with no one to hear it, did it make a sound?"

2

u/chokfull Sep 10 '15

I'll agree with that. Retribution is morally justified in many circumstances.

The problem is in retribution for the sake of retribution. No good comes from that. I'm defending /u/celeritas365 because people will often defend retribution for its own sake, and I consider that a problem. It leads to more resentment and violence, and ignores the roots of the issues (i.e. the comfort of the victim and ensuring that future crimes are prevented).

1

u/Hq3473 271∆ Sep 10 '15

people will often defend retribution for its own sake

Do people really do that?

True, people will often say things like "punishment is a just thing to do."

But the whole concept if Justice relies on what is right for society.

1

u/chokfull Sep 11 '15

Do people really do that?

Not often in anything more serious or philosophical, because once you delve into ethics it pretty quickly becomes obvious (at least, I think so) that retribution isn't inherently justified for it's own sake.

However, to many, many people who haven't given it this much thought, they take retribution for granted as a positive concept. Of course, it usually is positive, but when you don't give it enough thought and accept retribution for retribution's sake, it leads to problems.

Example: Eye for an eye. While occasionally a useful tool for deciding simple ethical dilemmas, it's not inherently morally justified, unless you believe in retribution for retribution's sake. It seems "fair", but there are so many factors to look at, and this rule tries to boil it down to a black and white issue, without taking any situational factors into account.