"Liberator Veritatis" <LiberatorVeritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:51ohk0180lp1rsl1s9iba1pdi6n04ifh78@4ax.com...

... The way justice by the principle of retribution works, Harry has the
right to blow up John's house. If that is indeed what Harry wishes, then
you have no right to stand in Harry's way. Even by your own principle,
once Harry now owns John's house, he would have the right to blow up his
own house right? <

Harry would be quite insane to blow up his own house.

And that is the
problem with the whole retribution thing. Except for the brief moment of
satisfying one's anger, it produces nothing of value, and it accomplishes
great harm. That's why retribution is considered a juvenile and primitive
form of "justice". To assert that "you have no right to stand in Harry's
way" is at best inaccurate and at worst immoral.

And by the way, this is called Restitution not "Correction". And your
account of it is worse for John than the simple retribution since John not
only loses his house, but he also has to go to jail. <

Restitution is one part of correction. Another part is putting John
someplace where he no longer poses a threat to Harry's house or anyone
else's house. Prison also communicates to John that the community will not
tolerate his arson. And even gives John the opportunity to learn from his
mistake, so that when he is released, he will not burn down other peoples
houses. I believe that's why prisons are sometimes called "correctional
facilities".

And your account of it is worse for John than the simple retribution since
John not only loses his house, but he also has to go to jail. <

If John is successfully corrected, then prison is not "worse" for John, but
actually "good" for him, in terms of his "real needs" rather than his "wants
and desires".

(However, I do believe that John should pay more than just with his house
since that outcome would leave John having been treated preferentially by
virtue of the fact that he got to choose that they both lose their house
whereas Harry never got to choose.) <

Yup. And in that sense, if John is a pyromanic, seeing his own house burn
after seeing Harry's house burn might be a reward! The whole retribution
thing really is counter-productive. It is not a good principle of justice.

Which is the better principle, Retribution or Correction? Justify your
answer. (And you know I can justify mine).<<

You cannot justify yours on any grounds independent of your own notion of
"good" hoping that everyone else or enough other people share a
sufficiently similar notion to "agree" with you.<

Funny, but I don't think I "own" this notion of "good".

Everyone recognizes that it is a "bad" thing when John burns down Harry's
house. Having a house is a "good" thing and losing it is "bad". A house is
"good" because it meets a "real need" that each of us has, for shelter from
the cold.

Therefore, everyone agrees that it would be "better for everyone" if people
did not go around burning down other people's houses.

And everyone will also agree that requiring John to restore Harry's house
leaves Harry much "better" off than if Harry only got the opportunity to
burn down John's house in retribution. We've all heard the short-form moral
evaluation of retributive justice, that "two wrongs do not make a right".
Restitution of Harry's house actually corrects the harm, but retribution
just burns down more houses.

My principle of retribution includes restitution. <

It does now. :-) That's the thing about principles. When we realize they
are not meeting the objective of "the best good and least harm for everyone"
we either have to restrict their application to situations where they work,
or modify them to work better, or replace them with a better principle.

Most people would choose restitution for the obvious reason that it not
only exacts retribution, but it also makes them whole again. <

The benefit of restitution is in that "making whole again" and also
correcting the general situation where someone is going around burning down
houses. Having set things right, the moral person will be satisfied without
the need for vengeance.

Vengeance, and it's more formal cousin "retribution", has value solely as a
deterrent. The rule of "an eye for an eye" makes people more careful about
other people's eyes.

On the other hand, there are plenty of crimes that are not easily if at
all rectifiable with restitution. For instance, if John rapes Mary, then
it is unclear just what John could do to pay Mary back for this offense.
Indeed, the very thought of it insultingly treats Mary like a *****. So,
Mary would like to filet John's penis and feed it to him. While this
sentiment is understandable, it probably isn't quite justified by what
John has done. Sending him to a maximum security prison to become
someone's ***** for a few years, on the other hand, might be a lot closer
to the appropriate reciprocal treatment. <

The victim and other women can be made safer with the rapist in jail.
Restitution is not always feasible, and some damages cannot be repaired, but
other forms of restitution may be sought through civil suit. The rapist
might be required to work in prison, and his salary could defer the cost of
the victim's medical treatment and counseling, for example.

As for a reasonable explanation, I have provided and continue to provide
that. As for its survival, our justice system is based more on the idea
of retribution than anything else, so I don't think I am in any danger of
it becoming a lost idea. <

But clearly our justice system is not based upon "an eye for an eye". That
idea was probably used by the ancient Jews because they were traveling
through the desert and had no prisons. The objective was most likely to
provide some form of deterrence to those tempted to punch someone's eye out.

By "good" things, you mean "personally valuable" things. Though this is a
common belief, we certainly do not know it. However, it is virtually
meaningless but tautologically true that moral principles are supposed to
be "morally good" whatever that means. <

What "morally good" means is something which is "good" for meeting a "real
need" we have as an individual, society, or species.

When we are hungry, we
have a "real need" for food. When we are watching TV, we have a "habit of
eating" but not a "real need" to eat. Food, clothing, and shelter are real
needs. Losing any of these things, like when one person burns down another
person's house, causes harm. Morality is about how to achieve the best good,
and the least harm, for everyone. All "moral" principles are ultimately
concerned with that. The difference between the "law of thermodynamics" and
"thou shalt not steal" is that they serve different purposes.

... Everyone else has many and varied personal reasons for doing the right
thing. <

Well, yeah, we often rationalize what we do in many ways. But if you keep
asking "why?" at each of those reasons you end up with "to achieve the best
good for everyone".

Quite frequently it is to the detriment of everyone because everyone owes
something to an individual. <

I'm not sure what you are specifically referring to, but if the principle
that "everyone owes something to an individual" is good or bad, it is good
or bad because it either advances or deters achieving good and reducing harm
for everyone.

This is the real problem with your view -- it doesn't distinguish between
just any bad thing that happens and the bad things that are actually
*moral* issues. ... <

Not every "moral question" rises to the level of "moral issue". To become an
"issue" means there is some serious question as to what is right and wrong
in a given situation, such that people disagree about what is the best thing
to do. But it is incorrect to say a question must be an "issue" to be about
morality.

... So, for instance, your "If production of basic necessities dwindles,
we all suffer," suggests that everyone has the moral right to demand
production from everyone else. That's slavery! ... <

Slavery is obviously not the correct answer to providing the basic
necessities for everyone. Nor is communism. Both have been tried, and both
failed to accomplish the objective. The only "moral right" to demand
production from anyone else was expressed by the Jamestown settlers by the
principle "no work, no food".

So, the whole point of morality is to make things better for everyone, to
increase the overall good and reduce the overall harm that befalls any of
us. And that is the very valid reason for embracing ethical principles.<<

... The actual MORAL issue is going to have only to do with this issue of
consistency. ... <

Consistency is "a" moral principle, but it is not validly the object or
definition of morality. Hitler may be consistently evil. <<

Evil is inherently inconsistent. The inconsistency is in the way Hitler
treats others as compared to how he treats himself or how he demands that
they treat him. <

The moral principle is not in the consistency, but in the requirement that
Hitler treat others as he treats himself. He may be entirely consistent
about treating himself well and treating others badly. So there is no
morality in the consistency itself.

Consistency only has value to the degree that it consistently achieves good
results, which implies improving good and reducing harm.

The value of a thing is a personal matter not a moral one. <

The "moral value" of anything is the measure of how well it achieves the
objective of morality, which is to improve good and reduce unnecessary harm
for everyone.

... <rest is pretty much covered above> ...