[Revolution]

Mods: this is not a religion thread!! Ok, anyway . . .
As a lawyer, I've been exposed to a lot of depravity in my time, and it makes me wonder about a question I once asked a law professor of mine: are we anything more than the sum of our genetics and experience? If the answer is no (as my law professor theorized it is), then how can we justify the criminal justice system as a means of "punishment?" Incapacitation, yes, deterrence, yes, but punishment/retribution?
I do in fact believe there is some "higher" thought process. To paraphrase Justice Antonin Scalia of the U.S. Supreme Court (I don't know the exact quote), it does not take a highly developed sense of morality to recognize that there is something profoundly wrong with raping, torturing, and killing a child. (If memory serves, the death row defendants in that case were there because they jointly raped a 10 year old, then murdered her by suffocation -- they stuffed her underwear down her throat to asphixiate her. Yes, you read that correctly.)
But it's tough to quantify evil. You might not rank some idiot KKK loser from 80 years ago very high, but what would that loser do if he had the dictatorial power of, say, Hitler? He would probably try to kill all blacks, Jews, Catholics, homosexuals, etc. So is he "worse" than a murderer and torturer like, say, BTK? Or how about Dahmer, who was so obviously mentally ill?
So, can we actually quantify evil? And does evil, even in a non-religious sense, even exist?
(BTW, I'm nursing a pinched nerve. My mind is wandering. Cut me some slack for the ugly Saturday night question )
--Rev

[Pridelives]

People are largely a product of their envoirnment, evil doesn't exsist.

Hitler spent four years on the front lines in trenches of WW1, he was mentally disturbed, not evil.

[Revolution]

Originally Posted by Pridelives

People are largely a product of their envoirnment, evil doesn't exsist.

Hitler spent four years on the front lines in trenches of WW1, he was mentally disturbed, not evil.

That's quite conclusory. Argument/reasoning?
Many people have fought in wars. Not all turned into Hitler. So . . . .

[Zankou]

Why is some concept of "free will" required for punishment?

It's enough to make punishment meaningful if it punishes illicit action. The point of punishment is not deterrence per se, it's justice -- preventing people from getting ahead by wrongful actions, regardless of whether they "freely choose" to commit them or not.

In ancient legal systems, the impetus towards justice was so strong that inanimate objects, animals, and the dead were commonly put on trial and condemned. Think of Xerxes scourging the Hellespont, for example. Another example, one of the things that Mohammed forbade was the common practice in Arabia of trying and punishing the dead. Over time, the coercive and deterrent aspects of punishment became predominant in more advanced civilizations, and the impulse for justice was dispersed and minimized. Nowadays we hardly think about punishing the dead, but you can imagine the appeal of such a concept -- even in death, you won't get away with it, everything and everyone you care about will pay a price for your sins.

Transcendental religions (and their secularized successors) effectively defanged the burning desire for justice across the world, helping civilization on its path. Instead, pitiful lies about justice in another world or possession by evil spirits (aka, liberalism's "bad childhood") are used to exorcise the demands for justice.

[Pridelives]

Originally Posted by Revolution

That's quite conclusory. Argument/reasoning?
Many people have fought in wars. Not all turned into Hitler. So . . . .

Hitler was what he was because of his father, and because of the war he faught in.

[Revolution]

Originally Posted by Zankou

Why is some concept of "free will" required for punishment?

It's enough to make punishment meaningful if it punishes illicit action. The point of punishment is not deterrence per se, it's justice -- preventing people from getting ahead by wrongful actions, regardless of whether they "freely choose" to commit them or not.

In ancient legal systems, the impetus towards justice was so strong that inanimate objects, animals, and the dead were commonly put on trial and condemned. Think of Xerxes scourging the Hellespont, for example. Another example, one of the things that Mohammed forbade was the common practice in Arabia of trying and punishing the dead. Over time, the coercive and deterrent aspects of punishment became predominant in more advanced civilizations, and the impulse for justice was dispersed and minimized. Nowadays we hardly think about punishing the dead, but you can imagine the appeal of such a concept -- even in death, you won't get away with it, everything and everyone you care about will pay a price for your sins.

I find that very interesting. I would counter that the "illicit desire" should not be punished if it is not voluntary (not the product of free will). And if we are nothing more than genetics+experience, then the desire is indeed involuntary. Surely, involuntary acts/desires should not be "punished." (Again, incapacitation is fine, as is deterrence, but retribution is another matter.)

[FoxTrot9R]

Originally Posted by Pridelives

People are largely a product of their envoirnment, evil doesn't exsist.

Hitler spent four years on the front lines in trenches of WW1, he was mentally disturbed, not evil.

What proof do you have of a mental condition? I am not saying he didnt, but I would like to see some facts read up on that. Other than him killing millions of people of course. I am , by my own admission not familiar with the inner working of hitlet. Other than the whole goat /penis legend

[Zankou]

Originally Posted by Revolution

I find that very interesting. I would counter that the "illicit desire" should not be punished if it is not voluntary (not the product of free will). And if we are nothing more than genetics+experience, then the desire is indeed involuntary. Surely, involuntary acts/desires should not be "punished." (Again, incapacitation is fine, as is deterrence, but retribution is another matter.)

What does voluntariness have to do with it? It's your will that is the problem. Why it helps if the will is unconditioned by anything, and is utterly, radically free, is a mystery to me from the perspective of applying punishment. The real argument isn't that the will needs to be "free" per se, it's that it isn't really "your" will -- instead you have some true underlying will, free of temporal circumstances. But that makes nonsense out of the nature of the self and will. Will is NEVER free in the sense of some secret reality beneath empirical happenstance. Will is the expression of the organism's drives, socially mediated. There isn't some ideal person hidden beneath the empirical person. There's just an organism.

Even if you do go down the "true will" path, you would want to start with something like a concept of duress (extraordinarily oppressive contingent circumstances), rather than positing a mythological "free will" and proceeding forward from that point. You're basically just positing a mythical innocent Christian soul if that's your approach. And that's what creates the problem that has to be unwound -- people are envisioning the problem as if "evil" and "good" souls were floating around in the aether, prior to embodiment in a living organism. This theology is complete nonsense, but it's part of our heritage as the secularized remnants of Christianity continue to drift through our legal system (and that of post-Christian cultures).

[DR. Vegapunk]

Originally Posted by Revolution

That's quite conclusory. Argument/reasoning?
Many people have fought in wars. Not all turned into Hitler. So . . . .

Some people are more weak minded than others. That evil voice in Hitlers head telling him to do those evil things, overcame him.

[KönigTiger]

Personally,I think Hitler is portrayed as a one dimensional monster. People would label him as a butcher or a tyrant. I think he did what he did because he genuninely cared for his people and his heritage. It was all about preserving the white race and keeping it strong. He did it in a bad way,yes but who here can really argue that in some sick way,what he did was noble...for his people anyway.

BTW:I just knew that this topic would eventually lead to Hitler/Nazis. Com`on,Stalin anybody?