Eye for an Eye

[NBVegita]

So I was reading through CNN and found the following article:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/12/22/pakistan.harsh.justice/index.html

 

What are your thoughts on the eye for an eye concept?

 

Also please explain why you feel the way you do.

 

Personally I think that is justice. If you cut of a woman's nose and ears, well then why shouldn't the same be done to you?

[Bak]

The woman and her family had rejected an offer of marriage from Sher Mohammed, the officer who investigated the case said.

^^ funny

 

 

I think it's a bad idea. Based on previous topics here, I say you, and a few others are quite practical, whereas me, and a few others, are instead more idealistic. Thus, when making my decision, I think ideally criminals would be treated humanely. Life in prison (or at least a long sentence) for attempted murder and mutilation seems fair. Not to mention that no court is perfect, so that although this attack may be an open and shut case, another one may be less obvious (DNA evidence has freed dozens of people after spending decades in prison). There is no way to undo mutilation.

 

Plus I believe I have read some studies where the biggest deterrent against crime is not the severity of the punishment, but rather the chance of getting caught. Consider stealing music. If you steal music online, there's a low chance of getting punished, but a very high punishment (thousands of dollar per song). If you steal music in a store, the punishment is significantly less, but your chance of getting caught is much greater. Rationally, you would do a trade off analysis of amount of punishment times the chance of getting caught. I'd say even if they raise the punishment for online music theft so it was even with shoplifting, or even above that, you would still see more online theft than shoplifting. Would you be less likely to speed if each ticket cost twice as much, or if your chance of getting caught doubled? This justifies the idea that having severe punishments isn't necessarily the best way to deter crimes.

[NBVegita]

I do agree that as a whole, the severity is less effective than the chance of getting caught. But for example if you changed the law so that if you're caught speeding, you will never be able to drive again (I know its an extreme), you would drastically decrease the number of people speeding.

 

Not to say that it works in every situation as again I do agree with you on a whole.

 

My opinion is that if a person acts in an inhumane way towards another person, they don't deserve to have humane punishment. For example in our legal system those guys would most likely get 10-20 years in jail (maybe) and this 22 year old woman has virtually lost her life. I mean can you imagine going through life like that? I do agree that it's not perfect and innocent people may be maimed/killed. But on the inverse most of these people who have been cleared after years in jail have no lives left to live. I'll try to find a source but I think I heard somewhere that after 20 years in prison most people who leave prison wish they were back because they have such a hard time in the world after that much time away.

 

I'm not saying the idea is perfect, but the concept to me that a man (or woman) could kill 15 people and live out his days being completely cared for (if not nurtured) does not seem fair to me. If someone killed my wife, they had better hope the cops find him before I do. Hell I'd even go as far as saying in cases as severe as murder that they allow the victim's family to choose the punishment.

[Simulacrum]

Personally I think that is justice. If you cut of a woman's nose and ears, well then why shouldn't the same be done to you?

Why should it be done to you? What does mutilating a person after the fact accomplish?

[»Lynx]

Well, I guess as BaK already mentioned it's a difference between the practical and the idealistic, or one could argue vice versa . I'd also like to bounce off what BaK mentioned about deterrents of crime. I think it was Freakonomics or Superfreakonomics that went over this point in great detail. Ultimately, it assessed incentives for committing any such crime, and then measured the incentives against pros and cons. The results that Levitt and Dubner propose strikingly show that even the harshest punishments for crimes with vanishing small incentives do not deter criminal behaviour at all. I'll grab both books and post their findings sometime later if need be. But back onto point..

 

I think what ultimately irks me about any eye for an eye punishment is that I believe it's ultimately the largest sign of emotions controlling our decisions. After all, emotion is the enemy of reason. It's just a matter of time, I believe, before people come to realise this (or did realise this). Of course, your perceptions differ from mine (practical vs idealistic) but it wasn't all too long ago that your head was put on a stick for treason - or that people could be openly hung (for whatever the court decided). I'd like to think that as democratic nations we've learned that death or mutilation isn't the answer to helping beat crime. I'd also like to think that our judges and juries can make level-headed decisions when trying to come to a form of punishment. Of course, in the short term we may think that the only answer to our issues are animalistic, particularly if we were effected at first hand - but this is why we trust in our courts.

 

"I'm not saying the idea is perfect, but the concept to me that a man (or woman) could kill 15 people and live out his days being completely cared for (if not nurtured) does not seem fair to me."

 

I will agree with you on though (partially anyway). The ways in which prisons operate I believe should not be anything more than a cage, where you have to live. I don't believe there should be any forms of entertainment what-so-ever, I just believe that basic human rights should be respected. Even the whole social interaction in a prison is too much. This has been one of the things that have really pissed me off about the rehabilitative system in general. I suppose that should be left for another thread, though.

[NBVegita]

Why should it be done to you? What does mutilating a person after the fact accomplish?

 

I won't tell you why it should be done to me. I don't deserve it. I've never attacked a person, tried to strangle them with a cord, and then cut of their nose and ears to make a point.

 

What mutilation accomplishes is a punishment. In my opinion, deterrent or not, you have permanently ruined this 22 year old woman's life. It's hard enough to get by in life, now have a severely mutilated face and see how that works for you. The point of "eye for an eye" is to make the perpetrator feel the same kind of that their victim had to suffer. I'm not saying that it will deter crime, but there is no amount of jail time that can ever make you undergo the same torment and pain that this person now has to suffer for the rest of their life.

 

To me what "eye for an eye" accomplishes is a fair retribution paid against someone who voluntarily did an act of injustice towards another human being.

 

For Lynx:

 

As I said, I do agree to a point. But for example, China uses the death penalty liberally for murderers and they have over 4 times the population, yet half the murder rate we do. I'm not saying that is the only reason for their low murders, but I do believe (personally) that it has something to do with it. Again I do agree that as a whole, if someone is going to commit a crime, unless the penalty is drastic, it doesn't do too much to deter.

 

I think what ultimately irks me about any eye for an eye punishment is that I believe it's ultimately the largest sign of emotions controlling our decisions. After all, emotion is the enemy of reason.

 

Ahh but you see are you sure that the idea of eye for an eye is really the emotional, unreasonable response? Or could it possibly be that the emotional response is not wanting to exact a severe punishment unto another person? I would say it's perfectly reasonable to believe that if a person takes another person's life, that their life should also be taken. I'm looking at this with no emotion involved. In my opinion, if you voluntarily take another person's life, that person wasn't given the option to sit in jail for the rest of their lives. They had no option except to lose their life to you.

 

Part of what I think it comes down to is emotions, but not on my side of the fence. For example, if your dog is sick and old, you put the dog down. You do this because it's the "humane" thing to do for the suffering animal. Yet we say that if a human wants to end his life (if he is sick and old) it's "inhumane" to do the same thing? If a dog is overly aggressive and violent, you put him down because he can't co-exist with other people or animals. Yet if a human acts the same way, then it's "inhumane" to consider the same option. Now before I get the whole "OMG WTF YOU THINK PEOPLE ARE JUST LIKE ANIMALS!?!?!?!!?", I'm posting the above as food for thought.

 

Ultimately I feel like sending someone to jail for life is an emotional cop-out. If a man kidnaps a person, locks them in a cell, gives them food and water and clothing ect. Now they die (of old age/whatever). If the police catch him, it's still manslaughter. That's exactly what we're doing with these men. We're sentencing them to death, but it's a death that makes it easier for some people to sleep on. Now while we're at it, you're sapping tons of money out of the system to support people who's ultimate goal is to die in that exact same spot xx years later.

 

There really is no argument that capital punishment isn't logical (except on the exception that an innocent man may be executed, but inversely that same innocent man could just as easily be killed in prison during his term). Even at that, the percentage is so low, it would be parallel to saying that police officers should not carry guns because on a very small percentage an innocent person will be shot by unintentional police fire. The only argument is really based on if you believe it's ethical or not.

 

EDIT: Fix tags

Edited December 23, 2009 by NBVegita

[Simulacrum]

Why should it be done to you? What does mutilating a person after the fact accomplish?

I won't tell you why it should be done to me. I don't deserve it. I've never attacked a person, tried to strangle them with a cord, and then cut of their nose and ears to make a point.

Witty.

 

What mutilation accomplishes is a punishment. In my opinion, deterrent or not, you have permanently ruined this 22 year old woman's life. It's hard enough to get by in life, now have a severely mutilated face and see how that works for you. The point of "eye for an eye" is to make the perpetrator feel the same kind of that their victim had to suffer.

No shit. But why?

 

I'm not saying that it will deter crime, but there is no amount of jail time that can ever make you undergo the same torment and pain that this person now has to suffer for the rest of their life.

Why do you value making people feel "torment and pain"? There is no amount of torment and pain that can actually undo the original crime.

[NBVegita]

Witty.

 

Witty? If you don't commit a crime, you don't deserve the punishment associated with it.

 

That seems rather simple to me, not witty.

 

No shit. But why?

 

To me what "eye for an eye" accomplishes is a fair retribution paid against someone who voluntarily did an act of injustice towards another human being.

 

Why do you value making people feel "torment and pain"? There is no amount of torment and pain that can actually undo the original crime.

 

I completely agree that no matter of torment nor pain can undo anything. Simply put once an action has been done, nothing can "undo" that action.

 

I am stating the above out of what I believe to be fairness. I know that "life isn't fair" but I would like to try to make it a bit fairer. I believe that the consequence should be equal (or greater in some instances) to the action. To me, 10 years in jail for mutilating someone's face is not an equal punishment for the action. Now 10 years in jail and the same mutilation to me is a fair punishment for willingly inflicting the above on another human being.

 

Now I ask you, what about that is NOT fair?

[Simulacrum]

Now I do agree that torture for revenge is simply not useful. ... If you are torturing a prisoner simply for the enjoyment you get out of seeing another human being writhing in pain, that is not acceptable in my opinion.

 

I know that "life isn't fair" but I would like to try to make it a bit fairer.

Whereas I would like to decrease the amount of abuse in the world. Retribution is entirely hostile to this idea, and you haven't illustrated your rival ideals' benefits beyond restating them in different words ("justice," "an eye for an eye," "fairness"). If you can't illustrate any benefits to the model of justice which you are proposing, then what is it beyond the pornographic infliction of suffering which you have condemned elsewhere?

[NBVegita]

I did not condemn it anywhere.

 

First:

 

Now I do agree that torture for revenge is simply not useful. ... If you are torturing a prisoner simply for the enjoyment you get out of seeing another human being writhing in pain, that is not acceptable in my opinion.

 

Is relating to torturing a man for nothing but the enjoyment of causing pain to another being.

 

The concept of "eye for an eye" is to cause a fair retribution towards a person who has seriously wronged another person.

 

I didn't even use complex sentences.

 

I will ask you again, what about "eye for an eye" is not fair?

[Simulacrum]

I did not condemn it anywhere.

 

First:

 

Now I do agree that torture for revenge is simply not useful. ... If you are torturing a prisoner simply for the enjoyment you get out of seeing another human being writhing in pain, that is not acceptable in my opinion.

 

Is relating to torturing a man for nothing but the enjoyment of causing pain to another being.

 

The concept of "eye for an eye" is to cause a fair retribution towards a person who has seriously wronged another person.

What do you mean by "fair retribution" beyond "the good feeling I get by hurting a bad person"?

 

I didn't even use complex sentences.

That word... I don't think it means what you think it means.

 

I will ask you again, what about "eye for an eye" is not fair?

There is nothing about "an eye for an eye" that contradicts your apparent definition of fairness. Instead, I contend that your conception of fairness is unrelated to ethics. In fact, it seems that by "fair" you simply mean "repaying the actions of its object" — in other words, while you use fairness as a justification for the eye-for-an-eye principle, you have already defined fairness so that it necessitates the eye-for-an-eye principle. While this may be a, for lack of a better word, fair definition of fairness in terms of its common understanding, what non-circular reasons do you have for valuing both retributive justice and this particular notion of fairness?

[NBVegita]

First:

 

That word... I don't think it means what you think it means.

 

I was not using "complex sentences" as a literary definition, I was using the implicit words "complex" coupled with "sentences". Second, even in literary terms, "complex sentences" is still two words.

 

 

 

com⋅plex

  /adj., v. kəmˈplɛks, ˈkɒmplɛks; n. ˈkɒmplɛks/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [adj., v. kuhm-pleks, kom-pleks; n. kom-pleks] Show IPA

Use complex in a Sentence

See web results for complex

See images of complex

–adjective

1. composed of many interconnected parts; compound; composite: a complex highway system.

 

 

Instead, I contend that your conception of fairness is unrelated to ethics.

 

You're trying to invalidate my argument, noting that I am defining something that is relative, by you yourself trying to argue something that again is relative that you have defined yourself.

 

I completely agree that fairness is a relative idea. What is fair to me is not fair to you. I also argue that concerning morals and ethics, the same can be said. Very similar to the concept of justice. What you're attempting to do is make me define something that in order to do, I need to define more items which cannot be defined.

 

What is moral, just and unbiased to me, may be immoral, unjust and biased to you.

 

My concept of justice, or fairness as you will, is predicated by the concept embedded in nature. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Note the key word equal. In my opinion, the concept that a man can willingly take another mans life, spend 20 years in prison and get out on parole is not equal punishment for the crime. Not only did the man choose to end the life of one man, but he forever damaged the lives of everyone connected to that man. To me, equal punishment would be taking the mans life.

 

Again equality is a relative term, which if you're letting emotions dictate, you cannot rationally measure.

 

I again ask, using the original article that started this. What is unfair about having two men, who brutally attacked, attempted to kill and mutilated a 22 year old woman, have the same mutilation done to themselves and spend the rest of their years in prison? What is unjust in that situation? I daresay put yourself in her shoes and in our legal system. Would you feel fair retribution had been paid to your assailants if the same had been done to you and they simply got 10-15 (even 20) years in prison? I bet each time you looked in the mirror that self righteousness would ebb away.

 

EDIT: fix tags

Edited January 5, 2010 by NBVegita

[Simulacrum]

The problem with your argument is not that it uses relative terms. The problem is that it is circular, and not even well-disguised. Since fairness means retribution for you, you cannot expect to prove anything about retribution by asking me how I would feel about the fairness or proportionality of retribution in a situation.

 

As for the equal and opposite reaction, that is a law of physics that cannot be seriously taken as an ethical principle; it is descriptive, not normative. And even within the natural sciences, chemical reactions among other things do not follow this law. But at any rate, I should like to think that human morality has developed beyond the principles which govern the clattering of asteroids into each other.

[NBVegita]

Couldn't you equally say that our morality has devolved as a society? Why does adding emotion to a concept mean it has evolved? I think I could argue equally that to determine punishment for a crime based on emotion would be more primitive than to do it logically. In my opinion, logic would dictate that if you kill a man, you should be killed. If you disagree I ask you how is it logical to take a man who's killed another man, cloth, feed, shelter, entertain and give him medical attention for the rest of his life with other like minded individuals, taking up lots of space and resources? All while we have children without health care and people starving to death in the streets. To me it would be more logical to find a cheap efficient way to kill murderers and to reallocate those funds to other much needed areas in our country.

 

The problem with your argument is not that it uses relative terms. The problem is that it is circular, and not even well-disguised.

 

The problem you don't understand is that the only reason why my argument is circular, is because all of the defining terms are relative. Vice versa, your argument containing morality is no less circular than my argument concerning fairness. Except for one fact, I have implicitly stated that it is my belief, because as every possible term used to define fairness is relative you cannot acutely define fairness without defining each associated relative term with your own beliefs, thus making it nothing more than your opinion in the first place.

 

As for the equal and opposite reaction, that is a law of physics that cannot be seriously taken as an ethical principle;

 

I never stated it was a law that could be applied to ethics. I stated that my concept of fairness is similarly matched to the concept that for every action there is an equal consequence. I believe that is the biggest thing as Americans we have tried to get rid of. We like telling people that for most actions, there are very little consequences because it let's us sleep better at night. Simply put, the biggest reason why Americans have such international malice is that we don't consider the consequences of our actions.

 

Also note that I am not trying to "prove" anything. I have been completely defending my own opinion in this discussion, not trying to prove that "eye for an eye" is X.

 

I notice that every time I ask you if something is unfair, IN YOUR BELIEF and to explain why you feel that way, you skirt the question.

 

I again ask your opinion and ask you to defend it, instead of trying to disprove an argument I'm not even trying to prove.

[Simulacrum]

I think I could argue equally that to determine punishment for a crime based on emotion would be more primitive than to do it logically. In my opinion, logic would dictate that if you kill a man, you should be killed.

"Logically" is another word that doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. (Hint: "I think it sounds natural" is not a logical argument.)

 

Also, why is my argument the emotional one? Where have I even appealed to emotions?

 

The problem you don't understand is that the only reason why my argument is circular, is because all of the defining terms are relative. Vice versa, your argument containing morality is no less circular than my argument concerning fairness. Except for one fact, I have implicitly stated that it is my belief, because as every possible term used to define fairness is relative you cannot acutely define fairness without defining each associated relative term with your own beliefs, thus making it nothing more than your opinion in the first place.

I'm getting really fucking tired of this "Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man" Jeff Lebowski bullshit.

 

The irreducibility of moral axioms does not imply that circular reasoning is sensible. There is no discussion to be had here if the only justification you have for retribution is one that presupposes the acceptability retribution. If you don't want discussion, then GTFO the World Discussion forum.

 

I never stated it was a law that could be applied to ethics. I stated that my concept of fairness is similarly matched to the concept that for every action there is an equal consequence.

You stated that your moral reasoning is "predicated" by this natural law (To save you the trouble of looking it up, "predicated" means "founded, based." Not "matched."). If this wasn't intended as an argument, it's at least the closest you've come to making one.

 

Also note that I am not trying to "prove" anything. I have been completely defending my own opinion in this discussion, not trying to prove that "eye for an eye" is X.

Aren't you trying to prove (or at least argue) that "eye for an eye" is defensible?

 

I notice that every time I ask you if something is unfair, IN YOUR BELIEF and to explain why you feel that way, you skirt the question.

Every time you have asked the question, you have framed "fairness" according to your own definition rather than my own. And, indeed, there may not be anything wrong with your definition of fairness, since it is a word and not a metaphysical category. I haven't answered the question, then, because (as I have repeatedly argued, without substantive response) I do not find it relevant: whether I find something "fair" has no clear bearing on whether I should find it ethical. But, at any rate:

 

If you define "fairness" as "repaying a person according to his or her actions," then of course retribution is fair. However, I do not value fairness under this definition, and I find its use in justifying retribution to be circular — retribution is simply the repayment of negative actions.

 

If, however, "fairness" is understood as the absence of bias, I am all for it. But what does this have to do with retribution?

 

Your original question was about what I find unfair about retribution, and my response to it hasn't really changed: the only definition of fairness that would even be a question for retribution in the general case does apply to it, but this does not imply an ethical justification of retribution.

 

Edit: In other words: No, there's nothing unfair about it, but fairness is not sufficient for justification.

Edited January 6, 2010 by Simulacrum

[NBVegita]

"Logically" is another word that doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. (Hint: "I think it sounds natural" is not a logical argument.)

 

Also, why is my argument the emotional one? Where have I even appealed to emotions?

 

I pose that it is logical based on deductive reasoning as there is absolutely no possible way to create an inductive argument based on concepts that are relative. I can deduct a logical conclusion based on my beliefs concerning relative concepts.

 

In my opinion, if you're countering an argument that I've purposed as deductive logic, without disproving my logic, nor providing logic of your own to support the opposition, then I would define that as having an emotional component. Again, not a finite definition, simply my belief.

 

The irreducibility of moral axioms does not imply that circular reasoning is sensible

 

First your statement, although eloquently worded makes no sense.

 

First you cannot declare any moral an axiom as it is based on a sliding scale of each society in place at a certain time. What is immoral to one, is moral to another. The only concept that you could use to justify a moral axiom would be religion, which again is relative based on your audience. Second the concept that you cannot alter a moral is in itself a ridiculous concept. As stated above, morals are a constantly evolving as societies evolve. Third, no where I have tried to circulate my argument by paraphrasing the prior. I have IMPLICITLY stated that I have an opinion which cannot be proven or disproven based on the supporting premises being relative in nature.

 

For your statement to be valid, I would have to have stated:

 

I believe x because it is fair.

I believe x because it is just.

I believe x because it is moral.

I believe x because it is ethical.

 

Instead I have stated, many many time:

 

I believe x is fair because of my beliefs concerning fairness, justice, morals and ethics.

 

I now ask you if you believe that fairness, justice, morals and ethics are interchangeable synonyms, as I do not believe they are.

 

Of course I suppose that if you dedicate a moral axiom based on religion that it would be irreducible, but as I have done nothing of the sort, nor have I related that to what you believe is "circular reasoning" on my part, the sentence still makes no sense.

 

There is no discussion to be had here if the only justification you have for retribution is one that presupposes the acceptability retribution.

 

I would argue the same that if your only justification for opposing my idea is based on your ethical beliefs, that we do not have an argument, but we surely have a discussion. You're trying to confuse an argument with discussion. Based on your beliefs above, we should delete the entire topic based on religion because the entire argument for religion is based on the presumption of a God(s). I also don't presume the social acceptability of retribution for anyone else except for myself. In my opinion, fairness dictates my sense of justice, morals and ethics. (where it can)

 

Aren't you trying to prove (or at least argue) that "eye for an eye" is defensible?

 

Not at all. From my first post:

 

What are your thoughts on the eye for an eye concept?

 

Also please explain why you feel the way you do.

 

Personally I think that is justice. If you cut of a woman's nose and ears, well then why shouldn't the same be done to you?

 

If anything I made a statement concerning eye for an eye and asked for someone to disprove it. I have been posting things to defend my opinion concerning eye for an eye, I'm not trying to prove it in the sense you're trying to associate with it. As I've stated a dozen times, you cannot prove or disprove a concept when the only premises are relative. So the only way I can render a defense to such a subject is with my opinion, as the only way you can render offense to such a subject is with yours.

 

In other words: No, there's nothing unfair about it, but fairness is not sufficient for justification.

 

GREAT!!! FINALLY!!! lol

 

Now I propose to you, why does fairness not suffice for justification?

[BDwinsAlt]

I didn't read any of your posts because they all look like essays, but I think it's good that the government was like "See what it's like to have your nose and ears cut off!" but I think muslims should practice what christians and muslims believe, revenge is the lords. That means God is the one who will have revenge, not us. What happened to stoning anyway?

I get "stoned" sometimes, it's actually pretty relaxing. Funny how words change meaning over time.

Edited January 7, 2010 by BDwinsAlt

[Synister]

This is justice at it's finest really. What goes around comes around right? Eye for an eye kinda reflects that thing everyone is told in their childhood, "Treat people the way you would like to be treated". They chopped off her nose and ears, only suitable punishment is that they recieve the same to them. GG

[AstroProdigy]

I skimmed through the comments and saw the wall of letters so I decided I'm just going to say that while an "eye for an eye" is a form of justice it's also simplistic and I would rather see a more sophisticated system in place than the one thought up thousands of years ago in Mesopotamia.

[whalz]

as jesus wud do , lol, ... turn his other cheek and g et 2 slaps,... or in this case, turn his other eye and get um both out b efore he would retaliate

 

but realllly, if someone takes your eye u take his.. its only fair.. but if were using this as eye = hurts you emotionaly.. u r a pussy if you try to hurt um back emotionaly, cus obviously its just goona happen to you again.. cus where does it end.. sure they took your eye... then you take theres,, then they r pissed again and take your ear, so you take thers , and they get pissed again and take your nose.. so you take theres.. really

 

if we all keep fitin like that ^ we are no better than monkeys lol

[Samapico]

You drunk again?

[SeVeR]

An eye for an eye is good justice, and a good deterrent. While I agree that making the crime harder to get away with is a better deterrent, that is obviously not always possible, and beyond a certain point, further deterrent is impossible.

[Simulacrum]

I pose that it is logical based on deductive reasoning as there is absolutely no possible way to create an inductive argument based on concepts that are relative. I can deduct a logical conclusion based on my beliefs concerning relative concepts.

 

In my opinion, if you're countering an argument that I've purposed as deductive logic, without disproving my logic, nor providing logic of your own to support the opposition, then I would define that as having an emotional component. Again, not a finite definition, simply my belief.

I've repeatedly pointed out that your logic is circular, at which point you inevitably deny that you were making any sort of argument at all. Which... is pretty silly, as I've said, in a discussion forum, but at any rate you can't deny that you're making an argument and then pretend to hold some sort of logical high ground.

 

First you cannot declare any moral an axiom as it is based on a sliding scale of each society in place at a certain time. What is immoral to one, is moral to another. The only concept that you could use to justify a moral axiom would be religion, which again is relative based on your audience.

Jesus tittyfucking Christ, do you even know what axioms are?

 

Second the concept that you cannot alter a moral is in itself a ridiculous concept. As stated above, morals are a constantly evolving as societies evolve.

I never said that morals don't change. Look up "irreducible." It doesn't mean what you think it means.

 

Third, no where I have tried to circulate my argument by paraphrasing the prior.

Circulate? But in any case, it doesn't matter what you've tried to do. If your argument is that retribution is just because it is fair, it is circular.

 

I now ask you if you believe that fairness, justice, morals and ethics are interchangeable synonyms, as I do not believe they are.

Very well. But you have said that retribution is justice; when I asked you why it is meted out, you quoted yourself saying that it accomplishes "fair retribution" — and you bolded the word "fair"; again in that quote we see that you like "eye-for-an-eye" because it is retribution — or do you like retribution because it is eye-for-an-eye?

 

Since then, you've been trying to get me to admit that retribution is fair, according to some unclear definition of fairness. Considering that you've done some (accidental or otherwise) considerable work toward building an argument around fairness, you ought to explain why you value the fairness which you ascribe to retribution.

 

Now I propose to you, why does fairness not suffice for justification?

Don't take it from me:

 

The point of "eye for an eye" is to make the perpetrator feel the same kind of that their victim had to suffer.

If retribution is a fair infliction of injustice, then fairness clearly does not suffice for justice.

 

An eye for an eye is good justice, and a good deterrent. While I agree that making the crime harder to get away with is a better deterrent, that is obviously not always possible, and beyond a certain point, further deterrent is impossible.

A stronger deterrent would be to torture every criminal to death. Surely you agree that there are other considerations in judicial punishment than seeking the strongest deterrents.

[SeVeR]

An eye for an eye is good justice, and a good deterrent. While I agree that making the crime harder to get away with is a better deterrent, that is obviously not always possible, and beyond a certain point, further deterrent is impossible.

A stronger deterrent would be to torture every criminal to death. Surely you agree that there are other considerations in judicial punishment than seeking the strongest deterrents.

I said a good deterrent, which doesn't necessarily have to be the strongest one possible. A punishment deterrent proportional to the crime is what I would say is a good deterrent, thus an eye for an eye is a good deterrent and torturous execution for all crimes is not. Perhaps you misinterpreted my argument against Bak's idea of a stronger deterrent (making the crime harder to get away with), my argument being that only so much can be done in this regard, and beyond a certain point one's policing skills can deter no longer.

[Simulacrum]

How does proportionality have any bearing on effectiveness as a deterrent?