What is Justice?

[Intoscience]

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

You lack the same assurance that someone who has never been convicted won't commit a crime either. The post-trial system is not set up to anticipate future crimes. (Good thing, too, since most of us commit crimes, even if we don't know we have done so. We'd all be in jail if it were to prevent future crimes)

No, of course we can't anticipate future crimes in such a way as you describe, that's ludicrous. But if someone commits a crime then this is a good indication that they have the potential to commit another. Based on this premise, if the crime is a serious one, which poses a danger to society, then we should anticipate future crimes from the perpetrator and do something (at the very least in the short term) to prevent this. If the perpetrator is assessed and other means of treatment are used in an attempt to rehabilitate them, then we have to be sure the rehabilitation is successful, else the consequences of this could be catastrophic. If there isn't a very strong level of confidence that the rehabilitation has worked then the only guaranteed answer to protect society 100% is by detaining the person for life, or sentencing them to death (which by the way I do not condone).    

My argument is just this.

[dimreepr]

13 hours ago, beecee said:

No I am not a scientist, and I'm pretty sure I have made that point known in my time here...A retired maintenance Fitter/Machinist/welder that left school at the age of 16, and has absolutely no university education at all. Read plenty due to my interest in astronomy/cosmology, and hold science and the scientific methodology to be the best system by many lengths. And I couldn't disagree more with your hypothesis that evil does not exist, despite the teachings and so called learnings of buddhism.

Then, as a man who has faith in the scientific method, you know you can't refute an hypothesis with simple gainsay, present your evidence/arguments.

Besides, my knowledge of Buddhism is souly gained from watching 'Kung Fu Panda's 1 2 3', which I highly recomend, very educational. 

[Intoscience]

Humans have a distinct advantage of most animals in that we have the potential for a better sense of morality and appreciate the value of life far greater. Other intelligent animals display similar traits, however we have the ability to offer more "humane" treatment towards criminals, or people who are bad for society in general... Most animals either kill the threat or dispel them from the group, either way the lone animal has not much chance of survival or getting a "second chance". 

We argue over what is justice. For me justice is what serves society the best, now and going forward. The simplest and most effect method to protect society is to take out the threat, permanently. But in doing so we potentially lose the very thing that makes us distinct from the rest of the animal kingdom - humanity.

The problem is, we are in some cases still dealing with the animal instincts that we evolved from. To serve society by being humane at all costs sets us against the very basic instincts that we inherently still possess. If a criminal commits such a crime that they are then labelled as an "evil animal" then the likelihood is, in someway, that they are just that. A person that takes a life in such away that makes no logical sense and the act of doing so is such an atrocity. I really don't see what rehabilitation (short of removing part of their brain) could be successful enough to guarantee such a person won't re-commit.

I can't see an argument for humane treatment of such a person will solve the problem. I don't believe we as humans are yet far enough removed from animals to be able to rehabilitate everyone and certainly not warrant a utopic system in society where all crime can be eradicated before it is committed.

The old saying "you have to be cruel to be kind" still holds true in some cases, and maybe should still be considered when justice is served.      

 

[dimreepr]

13 hours ago, beecee said:

And no, quantum mechanics is not magic at all but a well evidenced scientific theory describing the quantum/Planck world under a different set of rules and regulations.  It simply does not operate under Newtonian concepts that we are familiar with.

"Obviously, it's not meant to be taken litterally, it refers to any manufacturer of dairy product's." 

13 hours ago, beecee said:

Emotions are part and parcel of who and what we are...we all love, hate etc                 And while emotions probably do play a part in any justice system, punishment is most certainly also a rational response to anyone that commits a serious criminal act.

But not necessarily as part of your three part plan, please explain the rationale of punishment when society has already been protected; and the answer can't be, because it makes me feel better, that's hardly thinking beyond your emotions.

 

8 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Humans have a distinct advantage of most animals in that we have the potential for a better sense of morality and appreciate the value of life far greater.

I think animals understand far easier, than a lot of human's; the advantage human's have is the ability to turn the other cheek and dig out the real causes. 

[Intoscience]

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Then, as a man who has faith in the scientific method, you know you can't refute an hypothesis with simple gainsay, present your evidence/arguments.

Besides, my knowledge of Buddhism is souly gained from watching 'Kung Fu Panda's 1 2 3', which I highly recomend, very educational. 

Good and evil are man made constructs that sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom (or at least as far as we know). Many animals show what we consider "good and evil " traits. Certainly many of the more intelligent animals at least do so. But do they define the concepts as good and evil in a way similar to what we do or is it just natural instinct?

Good and evil are based on what we as humans consider right or wrong which essentially comes from morality. So good and evil are very much real and well defined within human society. We have the ability to appreciate the value in things, and so, if something of value is destroyed (especially if it there is no logical reason for doing so) then we can attribute the labelling of "evil" to such an event. This then can be expanded to people and their intentions and motivations, measured against what is accepted as "good" for the society they live within. A person who is intent on destruction or gains at the cost of the highest value (usually lives) for their own benefit or a belief that is deluding them from reality, and cannot be persuaded other wise, are inherently "evil" in terms of human society. Such a person for example would be Hitler.  

[beecee]

18 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Then, as a man who has faith in the scientific method, you know you can't refute an hypothesis with simple gainsay, present your evidence/arguments.

Besides, my knowledge of Buddhism is souly gained from watching 'Kung Fu Panda's 1 2 3', which I highly recomend, very educational. 

I have, with a heap of cases in this and the torture thread. And I'm not really interested in Buddhism, Kung fu [ could be contrued as punishment, even torture] or Pandas, as cute as they are, along with the Dalai Lama of course.

PS: I don't at all have faith in the scientific method, rather trust, due to its success rate and logic.

 

[Intoscience]

Interestingly in the Christian religion, God often punishes those that are "evil" with plagues and floods and all manner of mass genocide. This from the creator of heaven and earth and all within it, the judge and jury for all living things the one who guides humanity. His methods are accepted as punishment and "justice" for the greater good of humanity. And here we are arguing over justice for criminals who commit evil atrocities, with a view to forgiving them for the greater good of society. 

Rather ironic. 

Edited August 30, 2021 by Intoscience
spelling

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Intoscience said:

Good and evil are man made constructs that sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom (or at least as far as we know). Many animals show what we consider "good and evil " traits. Certainly many of the more intelligent animals at least do so. But do they define the concepts as good and evil in a way similar to what we do or is it just natural instinct?

Reciprocity/fairness is a well studied trait in many animal's, what sets us apart is our ability to see past the immediate trade and weigh up the miriad nuance's.

Evil for a monkey is just not getting the same reward as his immediate neighbour; for humans, evil is what the tabloids tell us is evil.

[Intoscience]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

Reciprocity/fairness is a well studied trait in many animal's, what sets us apart is our ability to see past the immediate trade and weigh up the miriad nuance's.

Evil for a monkey is just not getting the same reward as his immediate neighbour; for humans, evil is what the tabloids tell us is evil.

But does the monkey consider it good or evil or just nature in general. I suspect none, since its potential for philosophical thinking does not exist, therefore the concept of good and evil doesn't exist. Good and evil are labels that we put on things for which society accepts to be right or wrong, evil often used for wrongs that are atrocities against society.

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, beecee said:

I have, with a heap of cases in this and the torture thread.

And I have refuted each with evidence and reasonable argument's.

I haven't just said "I couldn't disagree more" and left it at that.

Besides, most of your cases has been presenting 'what the media said about x or y.

Not a cogent argument for the existance of evil people; just an emotional response to a horrible incident.

[beecee]

27 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

But not necessarily as part of your three part plan, please explain the rationale of punishment when society has already been protected; and the answer can't be, because it makes me feel better, that's hardly thinking beyond your emotions.

https://www.google.com/search?q=is+punsishment+part+of+a+reasoanble+justice+system&rlz=1C1RXQR_en-GBAU952AU952&oq=is+punsishment+part+of+a+reasoanble+justice+system&aqs=chrome..69i57j33i10i22i29i30.19288j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

"Is punishment part of justice?

that retribution is the only legitimate form of punishment the court can prescribe: ... Kant regarded punishment as a matter of justice, which must be carried out by the state for the sake of the law, not for the sake of the criminal or the victim"

 

“Justice,” as another put it, “is a rational judgment involving fairness in which the wrongdoer receives punishment deserving of his/her crime.”

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

Pretty sure I have said similar somewhere earlier in this or the torture thread. I would add that there are a few types of punishment evident in any reasonable justice system, all designed first and foremost to suit the crime.....prison, retribution, to deter, and yes, you guessed it, attemps at rehabilitation. 

Edited August 30, 2021 by beecee

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Intoscience said:

But does the monkey consider it good or evil or just nature in general.

I don't know, I'm not a monkey.

[beecee]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

And I have refuted each with evidence and reasonable argument's.

Perahps in your mind, certainly not in mine or that generally held by the majority in a democratic society.

[Intoscience]

9 minutes ago, beecee said:

I have, with a heap of cases in this and the torture thread. And I'm not really interested in Buddhism, Kung fu [ could be contrued as punishment, even torture] or Pandas, as cute as they are, along with the Dalai Lama of course.

PS: I don't at all have faith in the scientific method, rather trust, due to its success rate and logic.

 

The beauty of the scientific method is that the only agenda is to attempt to understand and describe the universe we live in, in an objective and measurable way, that can be predicted and verified.  

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, beecee said:

 Kant regarded punishment as a matter of justice, which must be carried out by the state for the sake of the law, not for the sake of the criminal or the victim"

Exactly my point, finally we agree; though I doubt that's the end of this merry-go-round. 

What definition of punishment, did Kant use?

[beecee]

2 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

The beauty of the scientific method is that the only agenda is to attempt to understand and describe the universe we live in, in an objective and measurable way, that can be predicted and verified.  

Bingo!

[Intoscience]

12 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I don't know, I'm not a monkey.

I have a mentally disabled daughter, she has no concept of "good and evil" she hasn't the ability to sympathise or empathise, she has no morals simply because she hasn't the mental capacity to understand them. When we watch apes, monkeys etc especially the most intelligent ones, like chimpanzees and orangutans it quite striking how much more alike my daughter is to them in her habits and mannerisms than she is to us. We are not as far removed from our primate cousins than people think we are.    

Edited August 30, 2021 by Intoscience

[beecee]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Exactly my point, finally we agree; though I doubt that's the end of this merry-go-round. 

What definition of punishment, did Kant use?

I share your doubt...And I'm not that much into philosophy but anyway since you asked.......

https://www.google.com/search?q=kant+and+punsishment&rlz=1C1RXQR_en-GBAU952AU952&oq=kant+and+punsishment&aqs=chrome..69i57.8639j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Kant advocated two principles regarding how punishment should be administered. (1) People should be punished simply because they have committed crimes, and for no other reason. (2) Punishment should be proportionate to the crime. Notice that utilitarianism does not endorse either of these principles.

[dimreepr]

Just now, beecee said:

Kant advocated two principles regarding how punishment should be administered. (1) People should be punished simply because they have committed crimes, and for no other reason. (2) Punishment should be proportionate to the crime. Notice that utilitarianism does not endorse either of these principles.

That doesn't answer my question, what definition of punishment did he use?

[Peterkin]

Evil, like good, is a product of the human imagination. While other animals show degrees of ingenuity in problem-solving, we have a flair for problem-creating. We have put as much effort into making one another suffer as we have into healing - and certainly more of our human and material resources into warfare than welfare.

It's not so much a question of how many of its people are bad for a society, as how bad a society is for its people.

A criminal justice system is built up from the assumption that the most desirable outcome for a nation is that all citizens abide by the law. To that end, it sets about training up its citizens to obey its laws. Those who fail to obey the laws are designated "criminal" - a breed apart, suddenly different in kind - and dealt-with according to some philosophical principle ranging from gentle persuasion to years of torture. We deal in the same way with the law-abiding citizens of another nation with which we happen to be in conflict. And with otherwise law-abiding citizens who have been on the losing side of an internal disagreement over political leadership. And sometimes with citizens who profess a spiritual belief that has been repudiated by the current rulers. Every society makes its own criminals. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UqNIOc8rgc&t=51s

But we're not like that anymore!!!!

[Intoscience]

11 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Evil, like good, is a product of the human imagination. While other animals show degrees of ingenuity in problem-solving, we have a flair for problem-creating. We have put as much effort into making one another suffer as we have into healing - and certainly more of our human and material resources into warfare than welfare.

It's not so much a question of how many of its people are bad for a society, as how bad a society is for its people.

A criminal justice system is built up from the assumption that the most desirable outcome for a nation is that all citizens abide by the law. To that end, it sets about training up its citizens to obey its laws. Those who fail to obey the laws are designated "criminal" - a breed apart, suddenly different in kind - and dealt-with according to some philosophical principle ranging from gentle persuasion to years of torture. We deal in the same way with the law-abiding citizens of another nation with which we happen to be in conflict. And with otherwise law-abiding citizens who have been on the losing side of an internal disagreement over political leadership. And sometimes with citizens who profess a spiritual belief that has been repudiated by the current rulers. Every society makes its own criminals. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UqNIOc8rgc&t=51s

Absolutely, way too much effort in making people suffer over healing people, wars are a good example of such. 

The laws are set and agreed on by the majority within that society to help maintain an order which is generally accepted as what is "best" for that society. The justice system is their to deal with those who choose to operate outside of those laws, so therefore doing something which is not best for that society. The problem is people evolve, societies evolve, all people are individuals so all people will not fit within the society... the trick is not to get drawn into trying to please all the people all the time by attempting to amend a system to cover all bases. This is totally unrealistic and actually can be damaging to an existing system that works to an acceptable effect. 

I'm not saying things can't or shouldn't be improved, of course they should, they should evolve. But evolve in the right direction, and sometimes to maintain the correct direction we have to look back at the path that lead us there in the first place and be careful not to take a step too far back or sideways.     

Interesting that Kant stated "people should be punished simply because they have committed crimes and for no other reason"

Is this meant as a hint at people being unduly punished outside of that what is decide by the justice system?

Or, is it just that there are laws within a society and if you want to remain in that society then you are required to abide by those laws. If not doing so you will be "punished" accordingly for operating outside of what is acceptable for that society. Therefore the punishment is basically crudely, the counter to a reward, i.e. something painful, debilitating or restrictive as apposed to something nice, fruitful or facilitating?

Edited August 30, 2021 by Intoscience

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

No, of course we can't anticipate future crimes in such a way as you describe, that's ludicrous. But if someone commits a crime then this is a good indication that they have the potential to commit another. Based on this premise, if the crime is a serious one, which poses a danger to society, then we should anticipate future crimes from the perpetrator and do something (at the very least in the short term) to prevent this. If the perpetrator is assessed and other means of treatment are used in an attempt to rehabilitate them, then we have to be sure the rehabilitation is successful, else the consequences of this could be catastrophic. If there isn't a very strong level of confidence that the rehabilitation has worked then the only guaranteed answer to protect society 100% is by detaining the person for life, or sentencing them to death (which by the way I do not condone).    

My argument is just this.

And my rebuttal is the same as previous, because this path and its justification are awful.

People shouldn't be punished for crimes they have not committed, but might commit. Everyone might commit a crime.   

[Peterkin]

23 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

I'm not saying things can't or shouldn't be improved, of course they should, they should evolve. But evolve in the right direction, and sometimes to maintain the correct direction we have to look back at the path that lead us there in the first place and be careful not to take a step too far back or sideways.     

What makes a direction the right one? Which is forward?

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

Everyone might commit a crime.   

Every person? Every crime?

[dimreepr]

23 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

The laws are set and agreed on by the majority within that society to help maintain an order which is generally accepted as what is "best" for that society. The justice system is their to deal with those who choose to operate outside of those laws, so therefore doing something which is not best for that society. The problem is people evolve, societies evolve, all people are individuals so all people will not fit within the society... the trick is not to get drawn into trying to please all the people all the time by attempting to amend a system to cover all bases. This is totally unrealistic and actually can be damaging to an existing system that works to an acceptable effect. 

I'm not saying things can't or shouldn't be improved, of course they should, they should evolve. But evolve in the right direction, and sometimes to maintain the correct direction we have to look back at the path that lead us there in the first place and be careful not to take a step too far back or sideways.

The problem is, you think you've got a say in the matter.

The judicial system is there as a balance, between you and the best persuaders in your society.

Then all societies can evolve properly; in whatever direction is best...

[Intoscience]

18 minutes ago, swansont said:

And my rebuttal is the same as previous, because this path and its justification are awful.

People shouldn't be punished for crimes they have not committed, but might commit. Everyone might commit a crime.   

I'm not saying all people should be punished for uncommitted crimes, each individual case requires assessment of the potential danger to society. Why are you insistent on taking my argument out of context as though I'm advocating that all people are criminals and all criminals are likely to re-offend? I'm not saying this at all! Each case requires evaluation and assessment based on the crime committed and the potential danger to society.

So if someone commits a serious violent crime, and they show no signs of rehabilitation, they should be released back into society, regardless of the potential that they could commit again? Good luck with explaining that to the next victim's family. 

13 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

What makes a direction the right one? Which is forward?

Every person? Every crime?

Which ever direction takes society to a better level sometimes at cost to the individual, sacrifice for the greater good. 

7 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The problem is, you think you've got a say in the matter.

The judicial system is there as a balance, between you and the best persuaders in your society.

Then all societies can evolve properly; in whatever direction is best...

This is true, one would think that in a democratic society all voices should be heard and count for something.

Well, this is why there are revolutions...  

Edited August 30, 2021 by Intoscience
spelling