Humans in general punish because we are built to enjoy properly punishing others, not just because we think it deters. Punishment is an adaptation we execute. When we execute this adaptation, it does indeed deter crime. And evolutionarily speaking (both genetically and culturally) that is its purpose.
This is of course true, but… I don’t usually take part in karma debates, but 17 points for such a short and rather simple comment seems to indicate that the “adaptation executer vs. fitness maximiser” phrase serves as an applause light here. (I am not criticising or commenting on the parent comment itself.)
In this context I find it interesting that most of the reforms to eliminate “barbaric” punishments have not hugely limited cruelty to the condemned—but have made the punishment boring for observers and punishers. Our present day ambient ethics thinks enjoying punishing is bad—without thinking punishing is bad.
Very true. In many case deterrence would be better accomplished by a brief, intense punishment (basically anything physically painful that doesn’t cause permanent damage). But that would be too icky to tolerate in our ‘enlightened’ age, so instead we lock petty criminals up in prison for months or years.
I’ve always found it odd that harming someone via deprivation of positive experience is considered ‘enlightened’, but inflicting negative experiences is ‘barbaric’.
Humans in general punish because we are built to enjoy properly punishing others, not just because we think it deters. Punishment is an adaptation we execute. When we execute this adaptation, it does indeed deter crime. And evolutionarily speaking (both genetically and culturally) that is its purpose.
This is of course true, but… I don’t usually take part in karma debates, but 17 points for such a short and rather simple comment seems to indicate that the “adaptation executer vs. fitness maximiser” phrase serves as an applause light here. (I am not criticising or commenting on the parent comment itself.)
That leads in one of the directions I want to go with this. I especially thank you for using the word “enjoy”.
In this context I find it interesting that most of the reforms to eliminate “barbaric” punishments have not hugely limited cruelty to the condemned—but have made the punishment boring for observers and punishers. Our present day ambient ethics thinks enjoying punishing is bad—without thinking punishing is bad.
Very true. In many case deterrence would be better accomplished by a brief, intense punishment (basically anything physically painful that doesn’t cause permanent damage). But that would be too icky to tolerate in our ‘enlightened’ age, so instead we lock petty criminals up in prison for months or years.
I’ve always found it odd that harming someone via deprivation of positive experience is considered ‘enlightened’, but inflicting negative experiences is ‘barbaric’.