From: Smigrodzki, Rafal (SmigrodzkiR@msx.upmc.edu)
Date: Wed Apr 10 2002 - 12:49:38 MDT
Kai Becker [mailto:kmb@kai-m-becker.de] wrote:
Am Dienstag, 9. April 2002 22:01 schrieb Brian D Williams:
> Maybe no clean hands but some are a lot cleaner than others...
Philosophy 101: A crime can not be justified by another. Guilt is always
individual.
### Depends how you define your crimes. And it's also useful to ponder the
meaning of guilt.
I think that most of us will agree that a crime should be defined as a type
of reprehensible behavior, which deserves inescapable and possibly violent
punishment by the society. Not all types of reprehensible behavior deserve
punishment - some of them are not serious enough. The status of others as
reprehensible might be uncertain, especially if there is disagreement within
the society, so for the sake of peace, punishment is not meted out.
Therefore, the idea of crime is a highly evolved social construct.
But how do we come to form this idea in the first place? If you agree that
blowing up young girls in discos is a crime, then punishment (by the
definition of a crime) is in order. The justification for the punishment is
twofold: diminishing the likelihood of further crimes, and extracting a
revenge, satisfying the deeply ingrained, evolutionarily favored need to
maim or otherwise inconvenience those who are felt to be responsible. The
revenge motif can be in an evolutionary psychology framework derived from
the same source - the need to reduce the incidence of undesirable actions.
Guilt is both a state of mind and an attribute of a person, related to vis
acceptability of being the target of punishment. Let's talk only about the
latter meaning. Since the primary reason for punishment is the need to
favorably influence future behaviors, the attribution of guilt should
reflect that. Under most circumstances this is achieved by targeting the
perpetrator of a crime. However, sometimes other targets may be chosen, with
good control of behavior. If the perpetrator is principally unavailable (as
in being dead), punishment may target his associates, or family. This
approach was frequently taken in historical times, with the killing of
families of political opponents - the threat of destruction of one's kin may
stop even the young males who are willing to sacrifice their own lives. The
threat of being the target of punitive action may induce family members to
exert control over their relatives. It is only relatively recently in human
history that guilt became an individual affair. This is related to the
relaxation of the bounds of family, with most of seeing ourselves as
individuals, rather than primarily members of a clan. Another reason is the
refinement of social control, with the wielders of power being able to
deliver punishment more reliably against specific persons (who can less
easily escape in this world of huge police forces and nation-states), with
less inducement to target larger groups. Again, guilt is a highly evolved
concept, dependent on many factors, including the physical capabilities of
enforcers. It is however always needed for the functioning of a society, in
one form or another.
So, the meme complex of crime, punishment, and guilt evolved to safeguard
the efficient functioning of societies.
A crime may not justify another. But, it does justify punishment, if the
punishment results in the reduction of future incidence of crime. Sometimes
there is no way of delivering individual justice without hurting bystanders.
As long as the number of collateral damage victims is significantly smaller
than the number of innocent persons saved from future crimes, the action is
acceptable. If killing of supporters, even the proud (and therefore guilty)
families of suicide bombers turns out to be the only way of reducing the
number of 16-year-olds smeared on cafe walls, then such killing is not a
crime - it's a just way of defending the innocent. Long-term effects on the
survival of innocent persons are the only basis for judging the desirability
of an action. Simple dictums about guilt, and the folk psychology of crime
won't do.
So much for my "philosophy 101"
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:23 MST