kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (07/28/86)
Return-Path: <@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 86 22:58:33 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: rescue and punishment
To: cugini@NBS-VMS.ARPA
cc: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU, MetaPhilosophers@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU
From: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini@nbs-vms.ARPA>
I'm not a utilitarian, but a cost-benefit analysis is sometimes
relevant - the less the cost to you and the greater the benefit
to the other, the higher the obligation to help, and vice-versa.
I don't agree. There is NEVER an OBLIGATION to help. One ALWAYS
has the right to just sit there and mind your own business (assuming
that you did not throw the child in the water, are not in the drivers
seat of a rapidly moving car, etc).
The alternative would soon lead to the notion that one is obligated
if and only if the benefit to whomever is greater than the cost to
you. This would imply that any food you own or buy must immediately
be given to the hungriest person in the world. Your stereo must be
given to whoever can make the best case that they will get the most
out of it. There is no place for individual rights in this worldview.
My original example was designed precisely to avoid this as a
criterion by positing two lives of equal value, so we could
look at other criteria which then come into play, eg
active/passive.
You have criticized people on the list for ignoring your central
question. Well I am no exception. As I said, there is no good
solution to that dilemma. Ten people stranded for the winter in a
snowy wilderness with food enough for three of them to survive till
spring. Eight men on a lifeboat at sea with fresh water enough for
two. Four astronauts weeks away from Earth with oxygen enough for
one. No good solution except to try to plan well enough that the
situation doesn't come up. I prefer to deal with moral dilemmas that
come up more often in ordinary life.
States do have legitimate authority that individuals don't.
The state can erect a stop sign and tell you to stop at it.
You can't and neither can I.
If you own the road you can. This is why the state can.
I don't have the right to fine you or imprison you - this would be
theft or kidnapping. The state (under all but anarchist
assumptions) does have that right.
The state has no rights that individuals do not. You DO have those
rights, i.e. the right of self defense. You do NOT have the right to
hassle someone for doing something that doesn't hurt you or any
unwilling third party. Thus neither does the state have the right to
punish people for voluntary sex acts, buying or selling pornography,
gambling, using drugs, etc.
The rationale for punishment of any kind is to send a message to
the perpetrator which must be taken seriously.
I am not sure what this means. I see the purposes as:
1) Preventing the crook from doing the crime again, at least while
(if) he is locked up.
2) Deterring him from doing crimes after (if) he is released.
3) Deterring others from doing crimes.
The death penalty certainly fulfils all three. So would a useful
death. I don't see why a useful death would be taken less seriously
by the convict than a useless one.
But if they didn't already deserve punishment, we would never be
justified in incarcerating them simply as a precautionary measure,
a la Japanese-Americans in WWII.
I agree in general, though wartime has special rules all its own.
When you are fighting for your life, you can't always play fair.
I take it then that you oppose involuntary confinement of mental
patients, except ones who have comitted serious crimes?
if punishment is *not* tied to notions of intentionality and
justice - treating people as morally serious agents - the
alternatives seem to be to treat them purely as means to an
end (utilitarian), or as mentally incompetent (punishment as
therapy), or as in some other way irresponsible.
Well, I certainly agree with that. Except I am not sure what you
mean by utilitarian in this context.
...Keith
-------daemon@ucbvax.UUCP (07/31/86)
Return-Path: <david@rice.edu> Date: Mon, 28 Jul 86 11:56:18 CDT From: David Callahan <david@rice.edu> Subject: Re: rescue and punishment Reply-To: david@dione.UUCP (David Callahan) Organization: Rice University, Houston, Texas In article kfl@mx.lcs.mit.edu@mc.lcs.mit.edu writes: > > The rationale for punishment of any kind is to send a message to > the perpetrator which must be taken seriously. > > I am not sure what this means. I see the purposes as: > >1) Preventing the crook from doing the crime again, at least while > (if) he is locked up. >2) Deterring him from doing crimes after (if) he is released. >3) Deterring others from doing crimes. > > The death penalty certainly fulfils all three. > Can you reference any study which establishes that the death penaly deters crime (particularly murder)? This is an often stated defence of capital punishment which is seldom backup up with evidence. david -------