punishment, why?

Punishment sets the tone of socially accepted behavior. We must have it in order to feel safe. Although, it does seem to be going a bit too far these days. I'm not a proponent of capital punishment. OP, you didn't outline your post premise enough to define punishment. I'm not being down, but I was kind of left to my own devices here.

reply to post by manykapao

Punishment as I understand it is not to promote justice and balance the objectionable act with equal and opposite act. It is an more akin to a tax. Punishment is like a fine. Fines are a minor form of punishment with the death penalty being the most extreme. What punishments really are is negative pain response forms of behavioral control. Don't want your hand to get burned don't touch a hot stove, don't want to go to prison, don't steal. Most "reasonable" people don't like pain so it stands to reason that they won't commit any act that leads to the infliction of pain by commission of the act. Less people commit the act thus one arrives at something resembling a crude society. However, this should work both ways however society largely doesn't reward positive behavior. Now some people here are going to get up in arms over that last statement of opinion. I am aware though there are some outliers like the institute of noetic sciences. IONS
noetic.org...

Anybody else care to elaborate.

for the majority of humans who avoid pain and seek pleasure the concept of punishment is a deterrent to doing unsavory things and is what defines a society. You have to have laws of some kind if you want order. If you have laws you have punishment. what I don't get from the OP is why the question and what the proposed alternative is?
So you think that if I decide that your daughter is too ugly to live and I kill her it there should be no consequences?
I dont get it...

reply to post by manykapao


Humans have had laws or codes of discipline for probably a very long time. The reasons for this are obvious. We are social creatures, we need to live in harmony with each other. If you look at ancient cultures you will see some of them had highly complex legal systems. There are some who will harm others, who will take what is not rightfully theirs etc. A sad truth of human existence is that for some people the fear of consequence is what will stay their hand, this is the essence of punishment.

Vengeance is just another form of punishment, although human nature and emotions play a bigger role.

I think the main reason a society punishes is for the deterrent effect it has on the individual and others.

reply to post by SinMaker


that is almost the point


why punish the guy that kills another trying to kill him?

why ask if he was in the "correct circumstances" and is "legally able to do so.

You try to kill me, I kill you. Animal kills animal.

you try to kill me, I kill you, I go to jail because you were drunk, or whatever legal loop hole (distinction) we make.

the law does not need to be on a higher moral ground when we are a dual being. Animal and social.

in an animalistic situation, the law of nature should not have to bend to the distinction made by the law of the social being.

reply to post by AnonymousCitizen


but some "acts" are inherently inscribed in our human nature. It makes no sense to punish someone for acting within his nature.

Like yelling at a dog for barking.

It is a dog, they bark.
why punish the dog barking back?

reply to post by howmuch4another


then the mother should not go to jail for acting out of her nature and stopping you by any means possible to protect her child.

that is enough deterrent. When the other person is allowed the same power over the situation as you.

why are there no sociopathic killer gorillas that kill for pleasure? because it is fair game to gang up on them and stop them by any means possible. The pack will not look for the guy that didn't call the head gorilla to dispatch other "official" gorillas to stop the threat so as to punish him.

this is what happens when you have one group with an authority (monopoly) on force.

Originally posted by manykapao
reply to post by howmuch4another

 

why are there no sociopathic killer gorillas that kill for pleasure?

There are wild chimpanzees that seem to kill for pleasure. Are they sociopathic? You tell me.

reply to post by seabhac-rua


but we are still a dual being.

social yes, our ability for reason is there and social cohesion in complex systems, yes,
but we are also very much animals

there is no distinction except the one we make.

the two do in fact live in harmony and let one take over the other in any situation. It all is weighed in survivability.
one should lead and the other step back depending on the situation, rendering greater survivability.

reply to post by manykapao


we dont punish the mother for defending her daughter. what world are you living in?

So you went from "punishment, why?" to "don't punish the person that doesn't deserve punishment".

What is the purpose for your question because we are getting circular in this thread?

I applaud your defense of my right to bear arms whether you know you did or not

Originally posted by manykapao
reply to post by howmuch4another

 

then the mother should not go to jail for acting out of her nature and stopping you by any means possible to protect her child.

that is enough deterrent. When the other person is allowed the same power over the situation as you.

why are there no sociopathic killer gorillas that kill for pleasure? because it is fair game to gang up on them and stop them by any means possible. The pack will not look for the guy that didn't call the head gorilla to dispatch other "official" gorillas to stop the threat so as to punish him.

this is what happens when you have one group with an authority (monopoly) on force.

edit on 25-10-2012 by manykapao because: (no reason given)

so now you are pointing to mob rule as an alternative? that is sheer ignorance if you want human rights.

reply to post by seabhac-rua


how long do they last?

I am sure not very, since they are dependent on the group for greater survivability. Not like a eagle or a snake.

they are not designed to fly solo. like we are not.

reply to post by howmuch4another


if the mother kills the father for beating her daughter, she goes to jail, since the child would not have died, just been traumatized,

or at least she would go to a mental institution for acting out of her nature.

it would have to be well documented and provable that the child was in real life threatening danger.

The distinction he mother would have to formally prove existed.

reply to post by manykapao


In a human world without laws and their subsequent punishments we would have to endure the unbridled selfishness of powerful individuals as the members of a social group of chimps do. We have laws and punishments to protect all members of our society, of course I am speaking in plain general terms here.

Originally posted by manykapao
reply to post by howmuch4another

 

if the mother kills the father for beating her daughter, she goes to jail, since the child would not have died, just been traumatized,

or at least she would go to a mental institution for acting out of her nature.

it would have to be well documented and provable that the child was in real life threatening danger.

The distinction he mother would have to formally prove existed.

edit on 25-10-2012 by manykapao because: (no reason given)

this is another straw man you create that I wonder what world you live in. You cant say the mother would go to jail as an absolute. That isn't how the justice system works.

reply to post by howmuch4another


I made no such avocations.

you are putting words in my mouth.

I used primates as an example for an unrelated response to another member.

I will respectfully refrain from speaking to you until I can establish your intentions.

sorry.

Is there a difference between punishment and discipline?

As a parent, I discipline my child when he does something wrong. The best discipline is natural consequences, I just don't intervene.

Originally posted by manykapao
reply to post by howmuch4another

 

I made no such avocations.

you are putting words in my mouth.

I used primates as an example for an unrelated response to another member.

I will respectfully refrain from speaking to you until I can establish your intentions.

sorry.

um....huh?

I'm trying to figure out "you're intentions" with the thread and how you come to your obtuse premise.

Welcome to ATS by the way

reply to post by seabhac-rua


I am not saying we should not have punishment for an act of aggression. What I am asking is why formalize it to the point of the victim needing legal precedent to defend himself. If you could legally punch someone back for fighting with you, then the threat of getting into a fight would be less ( sober people ) since even if you had a "way out" you would still face another person not limited by a distinction a formal authority would place on them.


then no amount of power and privilege could protect you from the response of the person you injured/ hurt/ or threatened.