Ironic name for a child molester

[Jaden]

We can always do some hedonic calculus. I don't think it's a perfect way to measure morality, but it may suit our needs for the moment. Revenge generally only benefits you and only you, and maybe some immediate family or friends, in an intangible way and for a brief period of time, and you may eventually regret it. Rehabilitation benefits society as a whole if it's successful, and has much more long lasting effects both for the person rehabilitated and for the rest of the world.

Thus, rehabilitation wins on the fronts of duration, fecundity, purity, and extent, and probably loses in intensity and remoteness. Certainty might be a bit of a toss up for either one, to be honest - who's to say how much better you'll actually feel after you commit your act of revenge, or whether the rehabilitation will work? Therefore, I think Bentham and John Stuart Mill would agree that the rehabilitation option is the more morally right option, especially given that "extent" is generally considered the most important part of the equation.

</pretentious philosophy major>

[TheHuckster]

Thus, rehabilitation wins on the fronts of duration, fecundity, purity, and extent, and probably loses in intensity and remoteness. Certainty might be a bit of a toss up for either one, to be honest - who's to say how much better you'll actually feel after you commit your act of revenge, or whether the rehabilitation will work? Therefore, I think Bentham and John Stuart Mill would agree that the rehabilitation option is the more morally right option, especially given that "extent" is generally considered the most important part of the equation.

Another thing you must factor in is feasibility. Rehabilitating a petty thief or a mere sexually harassing pig is feasible, whereas rehabilitating a rapist with mental problems or a serial killer is next to impossible.

Vengeance is also not "the answer" per se because while their victims may feel some satisfaction from it on a skin-deep level, their scars are never healed.

Therefore, there is a third reason and rationale behind sentencing convicted criminals. Charles Manson or Ted Kaczynski are pretty much beyond hope of ever rehabilitating, they aren't in custody as a result of vengeance per se, and thus their confinement is solely there to protect society. And in a way, this still gives their victims some closure at the same time.

[Jaden]

Therefore, there is a third reason and rationale behind sentencing convicted criminals. Charles Manson or Ted Kaczynski are pretty much beyond hope of ever rehabilitating, they aren't in custody as a result of vengeance per se, and thus their confinement is solely there to protect society. And in a way, this still gives their victims some closure at the same time.

Fair enough. And you're right, it protects society where rehabilitation is impossible and where vengeance would simply be creating another problem.

[SkullKing]

that usually is decided by harm done, or potential to do harm.

Does this mean that as long as the harm done in retribution is proportional do the original harm.,than violence in retribution is OK?

[SkullKing]

Thus, rehabilitation wins on the fronts of duration, fecundity, purity, and extent, and probably loses in intensity and remoteness.
</pretentious philosophy major>

I am not as versed in philosophy, could you please explain what you mean by saying that it wins in fecundity and in purity?

and that it looses on "remoteness"?

I believe you underestimate how much "revenge" can brighten people's days

Also as I said before, I do not think two need be exclusive.

[SkullKing]

Vengeance is also not "the answer" per se because while their victims may feel some satisfaction from it on a skin-deep level, their scars are never healed.

I believe this varies a lot from individual to individual, and may be true or not depending on the person.

[TheHuckster]

I believe this varies a lot from individual to individual, and may be true or not depending on the person.

Really? You think that after a serial killer goes through the same torture he inflicted on his victims their families will take a deep sigh and their lives will be completely the same as they were before the killing? That's what I mean when I say healing scars. Sure, they'll probably feel some sort of satisfaction temporarily. It might last a week, a month, or even a year or two, but in the end, every time the victim's birthday passes, or they come across a picture, or they read an article or documentary about the killer they will never let it go.

And beyond that, how does the judge determine that the victim will truly be "healed" by, say, seeing their daughter's brutal serial killer get chopped by a wood chipper as a sentence? Do they hear testimony from their psychologist who will say, "Ah, yes. I spoke with them on this emotional topic and I believe without a doubt if you use a John Deer brand wood chipper with 8000rpm blades all of their troubles will immediately melt away and they'll be able to move on with their lives, adopt a new daughter they will name the same as the old one, and life will finally be back to normal!"

[SkullKing]

Really? You think that after a serial killer goes through the same torture he inflicted on his victims their families will take a deep sigh and their lives will be completely the same as they were before the killing?

No, but neither will knowing that the killer has been considered "rehabilitated" and is living a happy life without punishment.

There are also less extreme cases.

That's what I mean when I say healing scars. Sure, they'll probably feel some sort of satisfaction temporarily. It might last a week, a month, or even a year or two, but in the end, every time the victim's birthday passes, or they come across a picture, or they read an article or documentary about the killer they will never let it go.

Knowing the killer has been punished might give some closure.

And I do not consider it wrong.

The application of those things by the law is a whole other matter. I am talking specifically about right and wrong.

Like killing.

I honestly believe there are people who should be killed, however I am against the death penalty because I do not believe there is a reliable way for the state to administer it.


Neither am I saying the revenge is an ideal solution that solves all problems.

All I said was that I disagreed with Protege's idea that person A treating Person B the way person B treated their victims does not make person A as bad as person B,.

and that I disagreed with Andara's idea that "Violence in revenge (no matter what else you choose to call it) is only marginally less wrong than the original violence"

[SkullKing]

I would also like to say that sometimes what is best for society as a whole, is not what i would consider to be ethically right.

For example, I live in a place that until recently(1985) was ruled by a genocidal military dictatorship from which the country has never completely recovered(The public school system, for example, used to be very good, and now is terrible).

When the transition to democracy came, there was a "general amnesty". This meant 2 things:

1: Exiled and persecuted people were not considered criminals anymore

2: The Military would not be judged by any crimes committed, during their time governing the country.

This allowed for a relative peaceful transition to democratic republic and is widelly regarded as a necessary thing. To avoid civil war, It needed to be done.

However, that means there are a lot of murderer, rapists and professional torturers who will never be persecuted.

And to me that is quite simply not right. Necessary perhaps, but not right.

[Andara Bledin]

We don't live in a just world. We never have and we never will. Because humans.

We go with what is right (which is usually a choice of what is least wrong/damaging) because that's the best option.

The biggest problem with vengeance is the question of what happens when you have the wrong guy? How do you "unpunish" him after the fact? That's why there are so many appeals on a death sentence in the US, and even then, we still fuck it up and sometimes kill the innocent.

^-.-^

[SkullKing]

We don't live in a just world. We never have and we never will. Because humans.

Plus random chance.

Humans is the one thing we can actually try to balance a bit.

"We don't live in a just world" is not a valid response to not try to get justice done.

Since your problem with vengeance is a problem with most forms of punishment, does this mean that the reason vengeance is "slightly less wrong" to you, is because it has a slightly bigger chance of being just?

As in: if the target of retribution is certainly without a shadow of doubt the right one, than it is ok?

[Andara Bledin]

I see an awful lot of use of Justice when what is really meant is Vengeance.

The words are not interchangeable.

Honestly: No. Because there is no "beyond a shadow of a doubt." We can never be 100% certain that any one person did any one thing, or the motivations behind the doing.

Which is why the criteria for conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt."

People make mistakes. People lie. People act irrationally. And sometimes, people are just plain crazy.

^-.-^

[SkullKing]

I see an awful lot of use of Justice when what is really meant is Vengeance.

I agree with this, but I also think that vengeance can be a means of justice.

[BlaqueKatt]

Does this mean that as long as the harm done in retribution is proportional do the original harm.,than violence in retribution is OK?

um this was already addressed, and terribly out of context.

You asked who decides right and wrong, my answer was "Harm or the potential for harm". I sadly didn't think it was necessary to have to include, Harm or potential to harm is wrong.

What you're saying is; wrong +lesser or equal wrong=right

which has never been true, you can't get a positive from two negatives.

[SkullKing]

What you're saying is; wrong +lesser or equal wrong=right

which has never been true, you can't get a positive from two negatives.

-1x(-1)=+1

And yes you did, numerous times things that cause harm to someone are the right thing to do, even going by the idea that right is the least wrong thing.

e.g.: imprisoning someone