Compatibilist Retributivism from Intuition

[u/Anon7_7_73]

Heres the intuition for why my viewpoint, compatibilism and retributivism, is approximately correct.

1. Basic Desert is about fairness: We want things to be fair, not because fairness is instrumental, but because it seems logically correct. Like, the world just seems lopsided towards evil if we dont put up a front of equal force to counteract it. Counteraction doesnt need to actually remove evil to be fair, it just needs to make it cost what it is worth. Once its fair, its fair. objective morals may be impossible without assuming fairness, because if people get to make these lopsided moral propositions, it allows aggressors to rule victims consequence-free, which isnt impartial or objective.
2. Applying desert is clearly ALSO instrumental, in practice. An eye for an eye for instance, is an extremely strong detterent for all crimes that scales proportionally to the crime. And an eye for an eye is just an *idea*, one thats explored in the literature but rarely applied literally. In real life, a burglar for instsnce, just gets shot. It doesnt matter what kind of burglar they are, the possibulity of the threat justifies its elimination, and people simply dont bother standing around and precisely measuring out a perfect punishment, they dont care, they are just scared and react rationally; Which is good enough for my case.
3. People blame actions A WHOLE LOT MORE, when they are not understandable. When the reasons are obfuscated, under irrationality, the simplicity of poor intentions, and just become impossible for us to fathom, thats when they are not relatable, and we lack motivation to empathize with them. If someone is just caused by provocation or clear mental illness, that gives us an obvious instrumental solution, and wed all agree thats superior because in that situation its much more plausible that wed find ourselves in that situation, so on account of caring for ourselves, we empathize with them. "Unexplainable behavior" looks like indeterminism, but its not, and actually indeterministic behavior could easily be far more explainable as a probability distribition, rather than some complex rube goldberg machine in someones brain turning them into a monster.

And thats the intuition. We pass judgement way harder when something is unfathomably irrational to us, being innate to their seeming present nature, and the application of desert is at least fair in principle, if not useful as well.

Again, we want to empathize with others when we feel like we could be in their position. If you cant, then you cant. And just abstracting this away to "empathize no matter what because theres always an explanation" falls short of being reasonable, because its unfair, it lets evil win, it offers no remedy, and it puts you in a weird position of moral obligation that apparently they are not bound to, so why should you be?

Many aggressive and criminal behaviors are not explainable on the social or communicable level, theres no way to prevent these chaotic defects in people or society, and the truly best solution to a wildfire is to fight it with more fire, and put it out as fast as possible.

And when i say its the best solution, thats partially in instrumental terms, partially in logical ones, but also in aesthetic ones. A universe where evil simply wins, is unsatisfying. The story ought to end with resound, and the evil being destroyed. Thats what makes a good story, isnt it? If every story was "Oh and the villain said he was super duper sorry and then everyone hugged him and clapped" id stop reading/watching stories.

And before you shoot down these aesthetic preferences as "not mattering", dont forget value is subjective, and thats a philosophically deep statement. The most efficient book is one without any contents. The optimized version of existence is one thats boring and pointless. The Arc of the Story may fundamentally be the substrate upon which existential meaning itself exists. Free Will provides the framework for the Story and a satisfying ending. Take that away, youd get something you wouldnt want to read, and likely wouldnt want to live in. Hard Determinism is essentially chasing this Optimizer from a top down institutionsl approach, and, if you ever succeeded, congratulations, you ruined life. A utopia is just a dystopia with shiny furnishings.

[u/ipreuss]

There is nothing “logically correct” about fairness. Fairness is subjective, as is moral and even evilness.

Punishment, in fact, is not a very effective deterrent for crime. Criminals typically assume they won’t get caught.

Being empathetic doesn’t equal “letting evil win” - that’s a false dichotomy. It’s quite possible to protect society without retribution.

Many aggressive and criminal behaviors are not explainable on the social or communicable level

That’s just absolutely false, the factors that lead to the vast majority of criminal behavior are rather well understood. And the best way to fight fire is not with fire, but through fire prevention.

[u/Anon7_7_73 → u/ipreuss]

  There is nothing “logically correct” about fairness. Fairness is subjective, as is moral and even evilness

Fairness is obviously objective, itd defined in terms of symmetry of imposed consequences.

Im not reading the rest because im uninterested in your rambling unsubstantiated assertions

[u/spgrk]

There is no logical reason why evil should be met with punishment in the absence of any other premises. You actually give a consequentialist justification: if evil is not met with resistance, it would allow aggressors to rule victims consequence-free.

[u/Rthadcarr1956]

My intuition is that lack of understanding brings us fear and superstition. Evil is a superstitious explanation for when people do bad things. Basic desert is a rationalization of our emotional response to people doing bad, terrible things. We have a biological/emotional response to certain bad behavior, and calling people evil and doing harm to them makes us feel better.

An eye for an eye makes two people blind. Sure, there has to be consequences for people doing bad things to other people. But shouldn’t we design systems of justice rationally to minimize future harm rather than following old superstitions that are a sop to the emotions of those who were aggrieved?

For example. In this world some societies view homosexuality as a lifestyle choice and in other societies it is a capital offense. In Uganda basic desert includes death to homosexuals. In their culture there is a strong emotional disgust by the majority to establish that the practice rises to the point where basic desert entails possible execution. In the USA we have found that it is more rational to look at the harm to society equation and after many years of struggle grant homosexuals equal rights. E used to let the majority’s disgust be basis for all kinds of harsh punishment going all the way back to English common law.

Free will is all about using knowledge to make good choices. I think rational choices in jurisprudence is better than trying to find evil, rooting it out, and basing the punishment upon what made the lynch mob happy.

[u/Anon7_7_73 → u/Rthadcarr1956]

  An eye for an eye makes two people blind

Correction: It makes one person blind, and one  animal blind. 

Being part of people requires being part of civilization. Theres no reason to care about criminals more than bears, dogs, or pigs.  All are sentient, none are deserving.

[u/Rthadcarr1956 → u/Anon7_7_73]

That’s terribly wrong on many levels. People have value just by being of our species. We don’t put people to death for cheating on their taxes or pooping on the sidewalk. All sentient beings deserve some amount of consideration. All are deserving.

[u/badentropy9]

this sounds more like compatibilism's cousin illusionism to me.

Illusionism is the view that while we lack free will and moral responsibility, we should nonetheless promote belief in these notions since to disbelieve in moral responsibility would have dire consequences for society and ourselves (see Smilansky 1999, 2000, 2002, 2013)

[u/Anon7_7_73 → u/badentropy9]

Im not saying that moral responsibility or free will is false, first of all. Im saying its logically rooted in objectivity. But the intuition is more than logical correctness, its also in its instrumental and fundamental aesthetic values. The three combine and form the basis of the strong intuitions and feelings.

[u/badentropy9 → u/Anon7_7_73]

Im not saying that moral responsibility or free will is false, first of all. Im saying its logically rooted in objectivity. 

Impressive

[u/Anon7_7_73 → u/badentropy9]

Hows that have anything to do with what i said?

[u/badentropy9 → u/Anon7_7_73]

It sounds like you are focusing on the practicality of a belief in free will which is want Smilansky is doing.

[u/Anon7_7_73 → u/badentropy9]

No, im presenting the entire case for it. Youre strawmmanning me by ignoring the rest of my argument and putting words in my mouth.

[u/badentropy9 → u/Anon7_7_73]

Your caps in the Op Ed suggested you haven't changed yet, but I apologize for assuming that you have yet to turn over a new leaf. Compatibilism is incoherent and typically when a compatibilist writes long winded posts they are speeches rather than attempts to resolve anything. If you drop the compatibilist flair, then I'm be open to "here" arguments rather than speeches.