Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
The Problem with Retributive Justice
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 фев 2021
- Our gut reactions when it comes to justice are not all that trustworthy. In this video, we explain why by looking at the evolution and psychology of our gut reactions about punishment.
Follow us on social media.
philquestionsyt
philquestionsyt
References:
Aharoni, Eyal, and Alan J. Fridlund. 2012. “Punishment without Reason: Isolating Retribution in Lay Punishment of Criminal Offenders.” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 18 (4): 599-625. doi.org/10.1037/a0025821.
Aharoni, Eyal, and Alan J. Fridlund. 2013. “Moralistic Punishment as a Crude Social Insurance Plan.” In The Future of Punishment, edited by Thomas Nadelhoffer, 213-29. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/97....
Boyd, Robert, Herbert Gintis, Samuel Bowles, and Peter J. Richerson. 2003. “The Evolution of Altruistic Punishment.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100 (6): 3531-35. doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0630443100.
Danziger, Shai, Jonathan Levav, and Liora Avnaim-Pesso. 2011. “Extraneous Factors in Judicial Decisions.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108 (17): 6889-92. doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1018033108.
Eren, Ozkan, and Naci Mocan. 2018. “Emotional Judges and Unlucky Juveniles.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 10 (3): 171-205. doi.org/10.1257/app.20160390.
Haidt, Jonathan. 2001. “The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment.” Psychological Review 108 (4).
This is very high quality for so few views, this channel is going to blow up in the near future
Thank you, very kind of you to say that! We'll try to improve more with every vid
Feels like I found my own private video essay made just for me :)
Some of the most refreshingly level-headed RUclips content, to the point where I can't recall anything more level-headed covering similar topics
Good ol' Nietzsche refutes this pragmatist view of justice in Genealogy of Morals. Our desire to punish and retribute stems from our fundamental desire to exert power over each other. We are too weak to do so at will, so we temper this organizing principle with law and altruism. When a person breaks the contract by exerting their will unilaterally on another, we sense it as unjust and that we as a society (or as an individual) should be permitted to exert ourselves too. In order that we maintain our social altruistic order, we choose to justify exerting ourselves on that person (instead of on someone random). This is of course a gross oversimplification, but I strongly recommend the book to anyone interested in this topic.
I think the problem with July and Mark's behaviour is the precedent that it's setting. Even if it turned out well for them, it normalizes a behaviour that may turn horribly for others. If I throw a burnt cigarette off my car window into a forest and it doesn't start a fire, it's still a bad act because if everyone were to do that, some would start fires. I understand that there are legal things that have potential to be bad (eg driving can lead to speeding, smoking can lead to harder drugs etc). The trick is to balance rewards, probabilities and risks. July and Mark's sexual enjoyment does not outweigh the bad precedent that it's setting, especially considering that there are many other non-relatives that they can get sexual enjoyment from. Law making deals with the masses, not individual cases, which is why precedents and incentives are important.
Vsauce's latest video on reasoning talks about this post hoc social reasoning. Great video with some really nice academic sources, love that
First of all, this is an awesome video, you are an awesome guy... my gut feeling tells me so
Never question your gut feeling!
Underrated content to be honest. I found this vid to be highly informative and very helpful. Keep up the good work!
Thank you, really appreciate it! With such a small channel it can feel like posting "into the void", but hearing that is really encouraging
... Did we just get rickrolled at 14:06?
And to answer your question in that text crawl, yes, someone will actually read those :D
Great video. Can't wait for your channel to take off!
Lmao amazing, never thought someone would actually see it :D
Great video, but the examples presented inadvertently prove both justice and injustice via the same call for retribution, but at different angles. I realize the intent is to focus on gut reactions, but I feel the message was missed by the end, "To examine your gut reaction in regards to reason for punishment, as well as forgiveness, before making the call." I'll explain.
First example: the punishment of the criminal is important because even though he might not be able to do it again, he is still a person with a mind and a life, a lot more flawed than the normal person. It's important to forgive, but forgiveness is not without punishment, especially when the perp is being denied retributive action against them, which in proper justice, would be seen as restorative. The dichotomy concludes that restorative and retributive justice starts in tandem with one another, but reasoning for the punishment being made before the judgment is what separates them even before they begin. The criminal, if punished correctly (which is another can of worms), could be beneficial for his outlook on life for the rest of his life, making him able to come to terms with his debilitation and guilts of actions. For forgiveness without a path to redemption is not forgiveness, but silent judgment and condemnation, of course, he has to have the will to change, and those unwilling to, indeed, need correction, not just for society as a whole, but their own outlook in their own soul, for anything less is not justice. The Christian parents might forgive him, but if his mannerisms concludes he is not sorry for what he did, then he will be made sorry, for nobody other than him. If the correct punishment was given with restorative aid to his problem, and he still is in that mindset, then he had condemned himself from that forgiveness, making his pain and abandonment necessary, as time should not be given to him by any soul. Because if he has become heartless, he will hurt the people around him, and that's collateral damage nobody takes into account.
Second example with the farmers... Gotta admit, everyone in this situation is a bit petty. A middle man burning crops as "justice" is not justice, but vengeance by someone who who thinks they are authority. But the example is perfect for how justice can be extrapolated into disguised vengeance or authoritarianism, which is a matter of perspective, which philosophy always is.
Third example, with the couple; it would entirely depend on their net of beliefs and promotion of those beliefs, either slyly or blatantly, while also keeping that secret. It could either be that they never talk about the subject to anyone ever, or they might have thought, "it was OK, but not for us." which alludes to a silent "it might be great for someone else" type of mentality. We both know not everyone is as good at protection as these two, and one can argue that just because one person isn't hurt by an action, doesn't mean another won't be if inadvertently suggested it would not be immoral by one of the two presented in the example towards a naive individual... As how can one say its bad, but did it without regret? Also, it can be argued that the mear mention of that type of relationship could be seen as promotion of that relationship by the subconscious, but that's a stretch, however possible. Saying something is wrong and having done it and liked it; it's a thought discrepancy that breeds discontent. However, that would depend on if you agree its fine or not, but I would argue that if they did it alone and kept it secret... How would justice even occur except between the only 2 people knowing it happened?
The important distinction between gut reactions in regards to judgment and thought levied on those reactions, is that if one thinks constantly about the justice of others, including perpetrators and self conscious duty to be a shining light in another's life with little to no collateral damage across years of experience, a gut reaction could be correct, but the misinterpretation from the owner of that gut causes the gut to look wrong. That would also have to be tempered with a realization that the judger has no true authority, and is morally better to stay apathetic until they are in a proper mindset and position of power; and I am of the mindset that judgment, or the punishment, should not be made without personal forgiveness of fault, for a hurt mind goes too far... Always!
Where does this gut reaction come from?
Same your desire to protect your family comes from.
A persons environment acting upon their genes
9:54 yes 👍
Assuming/believing in someone's guilt comes from the gut desire to feel righteous
I hope someday soon we completely abandon retributive justice and only focus on making everyone’s lives as good as possible.
No! Sone psychopaths don’t deserve any happiness ever again!
@@krystofthepolishguytalksan310 why though?
@@ataraxia7439 how would you feel if someone killed your family?! They feel no empathy so see No REASON to show them any. If you don’t give empathy, you shouldn’t get any in return!
@@ataraxia7439 and honestly, in my eyes people who sympathize with psychopaths and murderers are as bad as them. It’s the victims who deserves empathy and help! It should be all about victims and victims only!
@@krystofthepolishguytalksan310 sorry if I'm not able to respond to this all at once you bring up a lot of different points and ideas I think
1:00 yes, violence is necessary in life
No. You need to justify each avoidable instance, otherwise you can just use that as justification for doing anything violent.
Necessary?
¡Great content!
isn't the christian parents forgiving the psychopath irrelevant if the idea of retribution/revenge isn't justified? it seems like begging the question, or how is revenge and retribution different? Are we assuming that revenge is justified from victims/affected but retribution isn't justified from 3rd parties?
The video never answers why retributive justice is wrong, only to be mindful of gut reactions.
Consequence. Every person should allways face Consequences for there actions, Be they a reward or punishment. Sometimes the world doesn't naturally dish these out, It is in these instances that we must take matters into are own hands. Not for retribution, But for rebilitation. If humanity is to move forward, The All must face Consequences.
what purpose do the consequences have though? that's the question, and will (or should) inform what they are
yeah I struggle to find a reason why someone "should" be punished or rewarded. External motivations are not good for making actual good people. People may only be good when being watched, which like raising a kid, leads to a lower crime rate. But not because they aren't doing, it's because they've become better at hiding their crimes
I mean there is no way to avoid consequence. Cause and effect are built into the Universe
I didn't punish him 😕
Same. Karma shouldn't be regulated.
I gave him parole.
It is not punishment. It is called help. He was given medical assistance for his disability. Same is true with his 'crime'. Crime = made victim regret the interaction. How to avoid doing harm? That's what we must all try and do - even when that need to feed grips us (hence why slaughterhouses are regulated to avoid just that). Many of us are criminals. And, reveal in our injustice on those we don't like instead of avoiding them.
Weak