How would an atheist explain the probelm of evil?

.....

Brandon9000 wrote:

1. To deter the individual from repeating the behavior

So you claim, however I provide the same merited challenge as above and again note you have failed to respond in kind.

Brandon9000 wrote:

2. To deter others in society who might commit crimes

So you claim, however I provide the same merited challenge as above and again note you have failed to respond in kind.

Brandon9000 wrote:

3. Punishment

Sorry but this is circular. All you have claimed is you think incarnation is punishment.

In sum your case has yet to show any merit.

Gilbey wrote:

Chumly, With your "Justice=Societal retribution=Revenge=evil" calculation
You conclude that justice is evil, but how can that be?

So what came first, an act of evil of an act of justice?

Many of a religious persuasion would say there is absolutism in morality and it's found in the word of god or some such mythical tome.

Moral relativists would say it based on societal norms to the exclusion of any absolutism.

Others might argue evolution dictates certain moral idealizations.

Still others might simply say that the lesser of two evils is good by default and not even question moral impetus.

As a human being you get the joy of pondering these quandaries. My best suggestion is: don't forgot to poke fun along the way!

I agree that imprisoning criminals is a form of self-defense, but it is a short-sighted one if the prisoners are not imprisoned for life. When they get out, and most of them will, they will have become more dangerous for society, and more skilled at criminal behavior--unless they have been prepared to live more successfully in society. Rehabilitation, while never perfect, also serves our self-defense interest, and it does so in a more humane way, in a way that does not degrade us for cruelty and vindictiveness.

...You also need to understand that the laws of the land are based on societal mores, which again fall under the umbrella of relativism*

*arguably

If you say that you disagree, then you are claiming that punishing criminals very rarely discourages them from committing as many crimes in the future as they otherwise would, and that regularly punishing criminals either deters no one at all, or deters a segment of society so small as to be insignificant. Is this, in fact, what you do claim?

real life wrote:

Chumly wrote:

however as discussed: demonstrate with evidentiary methodology that incarceration is empirically definable as more than Societal Retribution (if the questionable arguments of deterrence and rehabilitation are exempted) and you have a case

Naturally you ignore the argument that incarceration is justifiable societal self defense, not simply 'retribution'.

Real life believes in retaliation; an eye for an eye.

Go ahead, justify the criminalization of marijuana.

Go ahead, justify the criminalization of public nudity.

Chumly wrote:

...You also need to understand that the laws of the land are based on societal mores, which again fall under the umbrella of relativism*

*arguably

How could this possibly be relevant to the question of whether punishment deters criminals?

Further, I asked you a question. Ignoring it doesn't constitue a valid argument. For some reason your responses almost always ignore anything I say or ask. Probably easier for you that way. Please respond this time:

Brandon9000 wrote:

If you say that you disagree, then you are claiming that punishing criminals very rarely discourages them from committing as many crimes in the future as they otherwise would, and that regularly punishing criminals either deters no one at all, or deters a segment of society so small as to be insignificant. Is this, in fact, what you do claim?

For all of history, parents all over the world have punished naughty children to make them hesitate to be naughty again, and governments all over the world have punished criminals both to deter them and to deter other would-be criminals. Now, you are entightled to ask me to prove something which has been accepted by almost everyone for all of time, but if you also don't yourself doubt that it's true, then asking me to prove it is only a dishonest stalling tactic, which is why I am checking to see if you actually doubt the truth of my assertions about punishment often deterring crime.

Chumly wrote:

real life wrote:

Chumly wrote:

however as discussed: demonstrate with evidentiary methodology that incarceration is empirically definable as more than Societal Retribution (if the questionable arguments of deterrence and rehabilitation are exempted) and you have a case

Naturally you ignore the argument that incarceration is justifiable societal self defense, not simply 'retribution'.

Real life believes in retaliation; an eye for an eye.

Go ahead, justify the criminalization of marijuana.

Go ahead, justify the criminalization of public nudity.

You asked for an argument in favor of incarceration for convicted criminals.

Now you are cornered, so you change the subject to 'what should and should not be a crime'.

real life wrote:

Chumly wrote:

real life wrote:

Chumly wrote:

however as discussed: demonstrate with evidentiary methodology that incarceration is empirically definable as more than Societal Retribution (if the questionable arguments of deterrence and rehabilitation are exempted) and you have a case

Naturally you ignore the argument that incarceration is justifiable societal self defense, not simply 'retribution'.

Real life believes in retaliation; an eye for an eye.

Go ahead, justify the criminalization of marijuana.

Go ahead, justify the criminalization of public nudity.

You asked for an argument in favor of incarceration for convicted criminals.

Now you are cornered, so you change the subject to 'what should and should not be a crime'.

Specious straw man drivel. The challenge is as stated.

'Jungle', eh?

Is it that difficult for you?

Seven words --

'Criminals are locked away to protect society'

Which of these words do you not understand?

real life wrote:

'Jungle', eh?

Is it that difficult for you?

Seven words --

'Criminals are locked away to protect society'

Which of these words do you not understand?

Your claim of societal intent is irrelevant.

Exempting your nonsensical spaghetti jungle:

Demonstrate with evidentiary methodology that incarceration is empirically definable as more than Societal Retribution (if the questionable arguments of deterrence and rehabilitation are exempted) and you have a case.

Chumly wrote:

real life wrote:

'Jungle', eh?

Is it that difficult for you?

Seven words --

'Criminals are locked away to protect society'

Which of these words do you not understand?

Your claim of societal intent is irrelevant.

Exempting your nonsensical spaghetti jungle:

Demonstrate with evidentiary methodology that incarceration is empirically definable as more than Societal Retribution (if the questionable arguments of deterrence and rehabilitation are exempted) and you have a case.

Your claim of 'retribution' is an appeal to intent as well. Your own argument fails to pass your test.

Retributive justice is a theory of justice that proportionate punishment is a morally acceptable response to crime, regardless of whether the punishment causes any tangible benefits.

In ethics and law, "Let the punishment fit the crime" is the principle that the severity of penalty for a misdeed or wrongdoing should be reasonable and proportional to the severity of the infraction. The concept is common to most cultures throughout the world.

real life wrote:

Chumly wrote:

real life wrote:

'Jungle', eh?

Is it that difficult for you?

Seven words --

'Criminals are locked away to protect society'

Which of these words do you not understand?

Your claim of societal intent is irrelevant.

Exempting your nonsensical spaghetti jungle:

Demonstrate with evidentiary methodology that incarceration is empirically definable as more than Societal Retribution (if the questionable arguments of deterrence and rehabilitation are exempted) and you have a case.

Your claim of 'retribution' is an appeal to intent as well. Your own argument fails to pass your test.

False, "retributive justice" is a factual societal element in the implementation of incarceration regardless of whether the punishment causes any tangible benefits.

Chumly wrote:

real life wrote:

Chumly wrote:

real life wrote:

'Jungle', eh?

Is it that difficult for you?

Seven words --

'Criminals are locked away to protect society'

Which of these words do you not understand?

Your claim of societal intent is irrelevant.

Exempting your nonsensical spaghetti jungle:

Demonstrate with evidentiary methodology that incarceration is empirically definable as more than Societal Retribution (if the questionable arguments of deterrence and rehabilitation are exempted) and you have a case.

Your claim of 'retribution' is an appeal to intent as well. Your own argument fails to pass your test.

False, "retributive justice" is a factual societal element in the implementation of incarceration regardless of whether the punishment causes any tangible benefits.

Are you saying that society punishes with no intent to do so?

real life wrote:

Chumly wrote:

real life wrote:

Chumly wrote:

real life wrote:

'Jungle', eh?

Is it that difficult for you?

Seven words --

'Criminals are locked away to protect society'

Which of these words do you not understand?

Your claim of societal intent is irrelevant.

Exempting your nonsensical spaghetti jungle:

Demonstrate with evidentiary methodology that incarceration is empirically definable as more than Societal Retribution (if the questionable arguments of deterrence and rehabilitation are exempted) and you have a case.

Your claim of 'retribution' is an appeal to intent as well. Your own argument fails to pass your test.

False, "retributive justice" is a factual societal element in the implementation of incarceration regardless of whether the punishment causes any tangible benefits.

Are you saying that society punishes with no intent to do so?

Another real life straw man argument based on misrepresentation of my position.