Why should consequences matter?

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

I don't know what you mean.

Joe, I quoted, in that same post, the statement of yours which tells you what I mean.

I had asked you a question, to wit:

Quote:

Yeah, so?

You're not obligated to answer of course. But your response was not addressed to the question, it was addressed "to the man." I wasn't talking about my personal beliefs. I was just asking a question, from the outset. I wasn't trying to answer it.

1 Reply

@layman,

You think that being reminded you once called yourself a utilitarian is an ad hominem statement? I don't agree, but then I don't care any more. Since you now claim you're only an occasional utilitarian, your "ought question" is no longer of any interest to me.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

You think that being reminded you once called yourself a utilitarian is an ad hominem statement? I don't agree, but then I don't care any more. Since you now claim you're only an occasional utilitarian, your "ought question" is no longer of any interest to me.

By way of elaboration about my use of the "ad hominem" phrase, I appended some text to my prior post. Your interest in the topic still seems to relate to my personal views, not the question itself. Suit yourself.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

The question assumes that. It was "Why?"

Because you haven't actually taken that person's life away. In a sense you are being punished for a similar thing you did wrong. You took a life away - you are punished by taking your life away.

You hurt someone then what would be an equalivent punishment?

You steal $100 then you are punished for $100 crime; you steal $10 million you are punished for $10 million crime.

Not that one is right or wrong over the other - simply in the law that is how it is looked at - now morally or ethically it would be different - but the law isn't necessarily about ethics --- just look at the lawyers for a start!

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

Your interest in the topic still seems to relate to my personal views, not the question itself.

On the contrary, I'm interested in discussing the question with people who have something to contribute to the discussion. You, unfortunately, don't appear to fit that criterion. As you've admitted, you have no foundation on which to evaluate an ethical question. You're just confused. I talk with enough confused people in real life. I don't have to go online to do that.

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

On the contrary, I'm interested in discussing the question with people who have something to contribute to the discussion.

Whatever you post can be read by anyone here, not just me. I asked you a simple question ("yeah, so?"). Your answer to that can also be read by anyone here. If you would post it, I might have something to say about it. Others (with whom you presumably WOULD be interested in discussing it) can then comment too. Once again I take note of your expressed desires:

Quote:

I'm interested in discussing the question with people who have something to contribute to the discussion.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Posting a question about an issue one has already taken a position on is not intrinsically indicative of either confusion or disingenuousness. Positions can be context dependent rather than absolute. They can also be provisional and subject to reevaluation rather than unchangeable.

Just consider how much time (your own and others') you've wasted with your prickly, erroneous sniping, and how disruptive this is to reasoned discouse, before you complain about time-wasting confused persons.

1 Reply

@puzzledperson,

P.S. Even if the question is rhetorical or in the nature of a quodlibet, it still raises an interesting point. Why should the potential or allowable penalties for a serious crime be different simply because the criminal fails rather than succeeds?

Typo correction: discouse = discourse

1 Reply

@puzzledperson,

Quote:

Why should the potential or allowable penalties for a serious crime be different simply because the criminal fails rather than succeeds?

I can't see where it makes any logical sense in terms of the usual deterrence/rehabilitation justifications, PP. But maybe it does in terms of the "retribution" (revenge) motive for inflicting punishment.

We have a tendency to think along the lines of "all's well than ends well," I would guess. It's not as easy to get indignantly outraged if you don't have extensive damage to complain about.

But even in civil suits we have punishment for "bad intentions." Generally, you have no claim in law unless you can show "actual damage" to yourself. But there have been cases where only "nominal" damages (say $1) have been awarded, but "punitive damages" running into 7 figures have ALSO been given to the complaining party.

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

Am I less in need of deterrence/rehabilitation/punishment?

Maybe you are. But that's irrelevant because the law isn't about you. It's about "promoting the general welfare", as the United States constitution puts it. And the consequences of your actions, not your personal assumptions or intentions or competence in pursuing them, are what affects the general welfare for good or bad. That's why consequences matter.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

..And the consequences of your actions, not your personal assumptions or intentions or competence in pursuing them, are what affects the general welfare for good or bad. That's why consequences matter.

Well, Thomas, generally some kind of "justification" is advanced for punishment. To say it's for the "general welfare" kinds begs the question. It's like saying "what's good is good," ya know. But, even given that, you're not saying WHY consequences matter. You're just asserting that they do.

If I plant a bomb at a football stadium that would kill thousands, but someone spots it seconds before it explodes and disables it, where does "general welfare" come in? Should I escape all punishment because no one got hurt. It that what you mean by "general welfare?"

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Should I escape all punishment because no one got hurt.

No you shouldn't, and you won't. But you should get a lesser punishment than if your attempt had succeeded. In other words, consequences should matter, which is what you asked about in your original question. Your latest question about escaping all punishment is moving the goalposts.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

I think you miss the point. Although the OP asks about consequences, the underlying question is really about intent.

If you kill someone, it might be an accident in which case you might escape all punishment.

If you killed them because you hated them, your punishment might be death.

I.e. Consequences are irrelevant and intent is all that matters.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

Your latest question about escaping all punishment is moving the goalposts.

No, I'm just asking "why?"

Quote:

No you shouldn't, and you won't. But you should get a lesser punishment than if your attempt had succeeded. In other words, consequences should matter..

How much "less?" 25%? 50%. What am I guilty of if I don't cause ANY harmful consequences?

It's not much help if I ask "why do consequences matter" and the answer I get is "because consequences matter."

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

If you kill someone, it might be an accident in which case you might escape all punishment.

But you're still liable to pay damages, and possibly punitive damages, for the tort you committed. So the law still imposes a disincentive on you.

Leadfoot wrote:

If you kill someone, it might be an accident in which case you might escape all punishment.

True enough.

Leadfoot wrote:

I.e. Consequences are irrelevant and intent is all that matters.

All that matters? Let's say I hate you, I intend to kill you, and because I'm a believer in voodoo I attempt to do it by sticking needles into a puppet representing you. Lo and behold, it doesn't work. Is the law going to punish me? Should it?

More to the point, though: As a consequentialist, I have no problem with legal distinctions based on intent. After all, different intentions lead to different consequences. If I kill you by accident and the law does not punish me, I'm unlikely to do it again. The cost of making your family whole will disincentive enough. But if I unsuccessfully try to kill you and the law does not punish me, I probably will try again, and may well succeed next time. So there's a perfectly good justification why intentions should matter to the law: the consequences of punishment vs non-punishment are different.

5 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

So there's a perfectly good justification why intentions should matter to the law: the consequences of punishment vs non-punishment are different.

OK, let's say that we have agreed that intentions are one important aspect. So the consequences are not the ONLY thing to be considered.

But the question remains, why should consequences matter at all? Thomas, you say:

Quote:

But if I unsuccessfully try to kill you and the law does not punish me, I probably will try again, and may well succeed next time. So there's a perfectly good justification why intentions should matter to the law.

Here you are talking about specific deterrence rather than general deterrence. But if, as in the example I used, you are assuming that I will again try to blow up thousands of people with a bomb, why should I EVER get out of prison?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

Let's say I hate you, I intend to kill you, and because I'm a believer in voodoo I attempt to do it by sticking needles into a puppet representing you. Lo and behold, it doesn't work. Is the law going to punish me? Should it?

By your prior logic, the answer to this would seem to be "yes." If voodoo doesn't work but your intention to kill me remains, you will just try a better method that does (or might) work, and that deserves punishment.

Me, I would just say: **** this here voodoo needle, it aint doin ****. Imma git me a .45.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

I think you miss the point. Although the OP asks about consequences, the underlying question is really about intent.

No, it's about consequences. Intent is largely irrelevant in this discussion. The distinction, after all, is between completed crimes and attempted crimes. In both cases, the intent is the same. The only difference is the criminal's success or failure.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

If you ask me it's about both, so you're both right.

In making moral judgments, how much, if any, consideration should be given to:

1.The intent and
2. The consequences

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

Leadfoot wrote:
"I.e. Consequences are irrelevant and intent is all that matters."

All that matters? Let's say I hate you, I intend to kill you, and because I'm a believer in voodoo I attempt to do it by sticking needles into a puppet representing you. Lo and behold, it doesn't work. Is the law going to punish me? Should it?

I was using the method of looking at logical extremes to arrive at a conclusion.

As you probably concluded in your 'second thought', I meant in a case like where a child runs out in front of a car where the conditions are such that the driver has no chance of avoiding collision.

In the 'killing Because of hate' example, I must confess to being one of those deluded nut cases that thinks this life is merely a test run to see what your intent is.

Does the driver think in those critical moments before impact "Of ****, a person in the road!" Or does he think in that moment of stress, "That stupid __ (black, Jewish, liberal, conservative, irritating neighbor, ******* idiotic Internet poster, fill in the blank) deserves to die."

I must confess to occasionally wishing some talking heads on TV would explode so I'm not being overly judgemental here.

1 Reply

Why should consequences matter?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know