How should we carry out punishment?

Fruitless

Thousands of years have seen numerous punishments for the crimes of people (or things). Many techniques have been put into practise - prison, torture and public humuliation.

However which is really the best form of punishment? Is punishment a good idea altogether?

What is your definition of punishment?
Why is punishment considered an effective method in controlling someone's actions?

Echarmion

However which is really the best form of punishment? Is punishment a good idea altogether? — Fruitless

I don't know if there is a "best" form of punishment. Incarceration is practiced around the world and, if properly managed, seems to work ok, though it is not without it's problems.

As to whether punishment is a good idea, I'd say yes. There are two main arguments. One is that, psychologically, humans demand punishment for rule breaking, and so punishment has positive social effects. The other is that punishment equalizes the victim and the perpetrator by inflicting a commensurate harm on the latter.

What is your definition of punishment? — Fruitless

A harm inflicted as a reaction to a preceding violation of norms.

Why is punishment considered an effective method in controlling someone's actions? — Fruitless

Are you asking about folk psychology or actual research here? The actual research indicates that punishment is not an effective method in controlling a single person's actions via deterrence. Rather, it's the belief in a working and equitable criminal justice system, with a significant chance of solving cases, that has a "deterrence" effect.

Possibility

Thousands of years have seen numerous punishments for the crimes of people (or things). Many techniques have been put into practise - prison, torture and public humuliation.

However which is really the best form of punishment? Is punishment a good idea altogether?

What is your definition of punishment?
Why is punishment considered an effective method in controlling someone's actions? — Fruitless

‘Punishment’ refers to legally sanctioned, mild or ‘unfairly harsh’ retributive action against another.

Retribution is a ‘natural’ fight response to adversity. Punishment is this same basic response in a social setting - a harmful act can also be seen as harmful to the community. Thousands of years of civilisation and law-making have managed to put some emotional distance or rationality into the process, and try to ensure not only that the punishment ‘fits’ the crime, but also that it prevents a re-occurrence and acts as a deterrent. It hasn’t changed the basic idea of permitting retribution for a harmful act.

About 2000 or so years ago, a crazy idea arose that perhaps instead of adding to people’s fears by trying to scare them away from doing harmful actions, we should be giving them an ideal example of living to strive towards and teaching them about courage, kindness and understanding.

It was a great idea, and many different types of communities thrived with this new method. But as they got bigger and didn’t get a chance to understand each other, or they were attacked by larger groups, they started getting hurt or offended and got scared again. So they spent their time trying to scare people away from doing harmful actions, and forgot to teach their communities properly about courage, kindness and understanding...

So what makes us think we can control someone else’s actions, when we’re not even sure how to fully control our own?

In my view, it’s not about control. The ‘control’ we have over our own bodies and over our environment is pretty much the same process: it’s more a matter of understanding how the systems operate, and where there is potential to vary the causal conditions that will initiate a certain action. Be aware, connect and collaborate. Do it with courage, kindness and understanding, and theoretically you won’t need to try and control someone’s actions.

Of course, it’s just a theory...

Fruitless

↪Possibility

The best way to 'control' someone is with

courage, kindness and understanding, and theoretically you won’t need to try and control someone’s actions.

- @Possibility

Do you think raising a child through harsh practises or through kindly practices would make them more successful?

Personally, I believe balance is the most important quality we need to adopt. We cannot lean heavily to punishment as well as kindness.

Possibility

Do you think raising a child through harsh practises or through kindly practices would make them more successful? — Fruitless

Well, that depends what you mean by ‘successful’.

I think when we parent with fear, we pass our fears onto our children. But one of the hardest things to recognise as a parent is that it isn’t about ‘control’. We teach our children to be courageous through awareness, connnection and collaboration - and then we need to gradually let go of our desire to ‘protect’ them from the world.

I think parents can be unnecessarily harsh with their children when they’re afraid - whether they’re afraid for themselves or for their children. Kindness in parenting isn’t giving your children what they want - it’s understanding what they need in order to increase awareness, connection and collaboration with the world, and then having the courage to give it to them when they can demonstrate that they’re ready for it, even if it’s not what you want or when you want it to happen.

As parents, there’s pressure to give our kids the ‘right’ start, with no consensus these days as to what that means. Parenting is more open-ended now than I think it’s ever been. So many parents of the last few generations have been raising children to serve their own individual ends or adhere to some passing trend, and then wonder why we have so many young adults who either feel entitled to life or who resent their own existence.

Personally, I think a dynamic ‘balance’ is achieved by starting at the ‘harsh’ end (eg. restricting movement and freedom) and then gradually allowing opportunities to demonstrate how they handle greater freedom. But I can achieve this with kindness - it’s about being honest with myself (and my kids) about why I’m being ‘harsh’. Do they still have something to learn, or am I just afraid for them - or for what I might be losing?

Congau

↪Fruitless

All forms of punishment are bad since they don’t fit the crime. What kind of basic sense of justice would suggest that a certain crime, robbing a bank or killing a man, is equivalent to x years in prison, a measured amount of torture or a stay in the pillory. Unless punishment is distributed according to the principle “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”, it’s completely arbitrary and offers no resemblance of what anyone might reasonably deserve. A god could perhaps perform the equation, but not a human being.

Still, we punish, and we have to. No other way has been found to make the members of an organized society conform to its demands. Without some sort of compulsion, it would be impossible to keep society from falling apart. It should therefore be the task of the legislator to find the balance of necessary evils. What would be the minimum amount of inherently unjust punishment necessary to keep social institutions alive and thriving?

With this in view we shouldn’t worry too much about someone being acquitted for a crime committed. The effect of punishment on the individual has vanished when the misdeed is already a fact, and justice will never be fulfilled anyway.

Echarmion

Unless punishment is distributed according to the principle “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”, it’s completely arbitrary and offers no resemblance of what anyone might reasonably deserve. A god could perhaps perform the equation, but not a human being. — Congau

It seems absurd to me to claim that, unless punishment is exactly proportional it's "entirely" arbitrary. If it's a question of reason, then the reasonable punishment can be approached.

Congau

↪Echarmion

If there is no similarity between a transgression and the punishment for it, how can it be anything but arbitrary? How many years of imprisonment is equivalent to a murder? What’s the connection between imprisonment and murder anyway? Is it suffering paid with suffering? How is the suffering of imprisonment to be measured against the suffering caused by murder? There’s no likeness whatsoever.

As to what is reasonable, different societies at different times make very different conclusions about that. There is nothing inherent in the crime that makes one measure of punishment more reasonable than another. Therefore it is arbitrary when referred to the crime alone.

“Reasonable” is in reference to society, existing laws, custom and expectation. It is in the context of external circumstances. What kind of reaction is necessary in order to preserve the existing order and minimize future crimes? That’s the only relevant consideration that can make the conclusion reasonable or not.

Could you tell me what would be a reasonable punishment for murder, not in your society or in any other society in the world today, and not in any specific society at any specific time? The question is abstract and meaningless, and your answer would be arbitrary.

Banno

Why should we carry out punishment?

Fruitless

↪Banno

Human's carry with them the curse of being able to feel, through the ability to feel they have the strength to change their logic. So, through pain, time or any mean of punishment in the eyes of the one being punished, they have the gift to change!

TheMadFool

Thousands of years have seen numerous punishments for the crimes of people (or things). Many techniques have been put into practise - prison, torture and public humuliation.

However which is really the best form of punishment? Is punishment a good idea altogether?

What is your definition of punishment?
Why is punishment considered an effective method in controlling someone's actions? — Fruitless

Whatever happened to prevention is better than cure?

I guess punishment has the primary function of deterrence rather than exacting justice. Who would gouge out an eye in a land where the law is an eye for an eye?

I think some would call punishment, manifesting as justice, the least worst option for it indicates a failure in society's moral fabric and a sorry attempt to mend it.

Isn't it possible to dam the flow of the river of immorality a little higher, upstream, preventing it from causing chaos rather than cleaning up after?

Is there no real justification for goodness? Do we really need a big, painful stick to keep us from wandering into the jungle like Little Red Riding Hood?

Punishment is fear-based "logic" which again points to the shoddy and/or difficult work in constructing our moral theories which crumble to a heap of rubble on the slightest opportunity of crimes escaping detection.

Perhaps we can take punishment to be a stop-gap measure; an inconvenient truth we must live with until we comprehend the truth about morality if that is even possible.

alcontali

Why should we carry out punishment? — Banno

The first concern should be victim compensation.

That is certainly the case where I live. If you pay off the victims, and you pay off the facilitating state official, you will go Scott-free, even possibly for murder (that wouldn't be the first time anyway). Still, if the victims refuse your money, you could be in trouble. But then again, they usually do not refuse the compensation if it is high enough.

That is why the effective number of incarcerations is very small here. There are very few people in prison. Quite a few names are still registered as being in prison, but in reality, they are not incarcerated.

However, this is very often not the case when the convict is a foreigner.

As soon as the foreigner makes the cardinal mistake of notifying his embassy, he can no longer pay off victims along with some facilitation money. He will be the only one to actually sit out the prison sentence mentioned in the books, which is often very long.

I have seen it many times over the last ten years: Americans, Germans, Australians, and so on, sitting out long prison sentences (often for possession of drugs) when a local would just have paid off the prosecutor and/or the judge. I have recently met an American, Andy, who a few months ago got released after five long years in the slammer. There are no locals who spend that long in jail. That just does not happen.

Possibility

↪alcontali

Have you read 84K by Claire North?

Possibility

Perhaps we can take punishment to be a stop-gap measure; an inconvenient truth we must live with until we comprehend the truth about morality if that is even possible. — TheMadFool

I’m with you on this point. I think morality as a set of ‘don’t do this or else’ laws or even as a ‘bill of rights’ will always be flawed.

But eradicating the fear-based logic from our view of morality is easier said than done - it runs deep, and conceals itself in our highest values: survival, civilisation, humanity, etc. Beyond these values is a more ‘objective’ view of morality, if we have the courage to seek it.

alcontali

Have you read 84K by Claire North? — Possibility

No, but at first glance, it looks like a possibly interesting thought exercise. I have just read the summary here: https://www.kategriffin.net/books-by-claire-north/84k

Legal systems that revolve around victim compensation seem to work fine, though. In some sense, they may somewhat favour the rich, but then again, the alternative is obviously even worse: no victim compensation at all.

In Islamic law, justice often revolves around diyya, i.e. financial victim compensation, which may be used in lieu of equal retaliation:

Diya (Arabic: دية‎; plural diyāt, Arabic: ديات‎) in Islamic law, is the financial compensation paid to the victim or heirs of a victim in the cases of murder, bodily harm or property damage. It is an alternative punishment to qisas (equal retaliation). In Arabic, the word means both blood money and ransom, and it is spelled sometimes as diyah or diyeh.[citation needed]. It only applies when victim's family want to compromise with the guilty party; otherwise qisas applies.

It may happen that the victim's family really does not want financial compensation, as even the facilitating state official may fail at persuading them, and in that case, the State will have to keep the perpetrator in prison to protect him from reprisals by the family. In other cases, the family may just forgive the perpetrator, even without financial compensation.

There is probably no urgent need for Claire North's thought exercise, because other parts of the world have centuries of experience with the principle of financial victim compensation. Her fantasy can never be as accurate as real, historical records.

Possibility

↪alcontali

I wonder if you have been either a victim or a perpetrator in relation to this victim compensation system. There may not be many more than in other systems who would agree with your assessment that it ‘seems to work fine’.

The point of North’s thought exercise was to illustrate that a victim compensation system, while it may have some success, like all other ‘crime and punishment’ morality systems in effect, is not the solution - it does not ‘work’ in isolation, and is just as prone to corruption as any other.

You’ve demonstrated that the system ‘seems to work fine’ in tandem with both incarceration and forgiveness. Remove those options, and I dare say that the system won’t work so well.

alcontali

I wonder if you have been either a victim or a perpetrator in relation to this victim compensation system. — Possibility

I have only discussed a few cases with people who were involved in them. The people in this country tend to be Buddhist, but they also think of justice first and foremost in terms of victim compensation. The government official handling the case, usually the police here, certainly takes that into account. He will facilitate payment from perpetrator to victims, while taking a commission for himself to compensate for his effort. I cannot imagine people here handling such case in any other way.

The point of North’s thought exercise was to illustrate that a victim compensation system, while it may have some success, like all other ‘crime and punishment’ morality systems in effect, is not the solution - it does not ‘work’ in isolation, and is just as prone to corruption as any other. — Possibility

Given the fact that people have been applying this system since time immemorial, we know in detail how it works. Furthermore, it is not even optional in an Islamic context, because the Quran etches the principle of victim compensation in stone (favouring diyya in lieu of qisas):

Quran 2:178: O ye who believe! the law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman. But if any remission is made by the brother of the slain, then grant any reasonable demand, and compensate him with handsome gratitude, this is a concession and a Mercy from your Lord. After this whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave penalty.

Victim compensation is carried out in lieu of equal retaliation, only when the victims agree with that. Still, in my experience, a lot depends on the negotiation skills of the facilitating state official.

You’ve demonstrated that the system ‘seems to work fine’ in tandem with both incarceration and forgiveness. Remove those options, and I dare say that the system won’t work so well. — Possibility

Incarceration is not considered a real solution to the problem. The Quran does not even mention it. Of course, forgiveness is a possibility, but it really depends on the ability of the victims to forgive. Demanding that they would forgive the perpetrator, is absolutely not an option. They are simply under no obligation to do so. The default position is still equal retaliation. Now, the job of the state official handling the case is to defuse that landmine and try to achieve to a compromise.

Buddhists are happy with that system, and Muslims most likely too (given the fact that it is mandated by the Quran).

Isaac

In some sense, they may somewhat favour the rich — alcontali

What the fuck? A system where the rich can basically carry out any crime they like because they're wealthy enough to pay the compensation, while the poor cannot afford to even risk being accused of a crime lest they get lumped with bill that might indebt them for the rest of their lives...

...and you call it "may somewhat favour the rich"?

alcontali

...and you call it "may somewhat favour the rich"? — Isaac

In the end, everything favours the rich. Well, it rather favours the ones with brains; but the (really) rich can always go on a hiring spree with their money.

You can sometimes -- but less often than people seem to think -- get better doctors too, if you pay the money. A rich person may survive while a poor one may instead die.

Still, "possibly favouring the rich" is just an isolated concern and not the description of a complete system. There is not much you can do with isolated concerns, especially, in the context of trade-offs.

I have learned to appreciate the local legal system, quirks, warts, and all, just like I appreciate the local food, the weather, the language, the music, and of course, the women.

All of that works absolutely fine for me.

There are foreigners who do not like some of these things, but hey, they can always move on to another place, can't they? I have been here for over a decade. I find Asia fantastic. You will probably not find me anywhere else any time soon.

Isaac

All of that works absolutely fine for me. — alcontali

I don't give a shit how it's working out for you, this is a philosophy forum, not a tour guide for sociopaths. The point was a moral one.

And yes, we can do something about the fact that the rich have things better. We collectivise and use our collective might to force them to give up their wealth, or adhere to laws which treat people equally.

alcontali

I don't give a shit how it's working out for you, this is a philosophy forum, not a tour guide for sociopaths. — Isaac

So, in your opinion, Asians would be sociopaths? Is that "philosophy" in your opinion? It sound much more like racist bullshit. I like Asians. I like their culture and their ways. Your racist views on Asians are despicable.

The point was a moral one. — Isaac

Your point does not make any reference to a complete moral system with real-world mileage. Hence, it is just the system-less bullshit that is otherwise so typical of the godless vermin.

Furthermore, as far as I am concerned, all morality and all legitimacy emanate from the laws of the Almighty. Therefore, I will only consider moral arguments within that delineation. I am certainly ok with the systems of Jewish or Islamic law, because I am familiar with them.

Therefore, I do not consider your point to be of moral nature, because an atheist argument is not receivable in morality. On the contrary, it is always non-system bullshit.

We collectivise and use our collective might to force them to give up their wealth, or adhere to laws which treat people equally. — Isaac

That is probably why such wealthy people have moved all their factories to China, just next-door from here. So, stop lamenting that they should "bring back our jobs" because I do not see them doing that any time soon. On the contrary, they will rather be moving even more business to this area of the world. So, what will there be to collectivize, really?

Furthermore, it's simply more fun to live here. I enjoy it here fantastically well.

So, yes, "collectivize" whatever you want over there, where you live. Just go for it. The more, the better. Arduously force things around and create a complete socialist "paradise" by forcing the matter!

Isaac

So, in your opinion, Asians would be sociopaths? Is that "philosophy" in your opinion? It sound much more like racist bullshit. I like Asians. I like their culture and their ways. Your racist views on Asians are despicable. — alcontali

Anyone who shows such blatant disregard for the welfare of others as you show by your endorsement of a justice system which serves only the wealthy is a sociopath by definition. Asian, Greek, Jew, Christian, atheist... It's not the group identity, its the opinion.

Your point does not make any reference to a complete moral system with real-world mileage. Hence, it is just the system-less bullshit that is otherwise so typical of the godless vermin. — alcontali

What measures 'complete', what smeasures 'real-world mileage', what measures 'system-less'? These seem like terms you arbitrarily apply to give post hoc justification for your dismissal of ideas which make you uncomfortable.

Furthermore, as far as I am concerned, all morality and all legitimacy emanate from the laws of the Almighty. — alcontali

No they don't. They eminate from you. It's you reading the book, it's you deciding which imam to trust, it's you deciding how to interpret laws in each unique case. The idea you somehow get told unequivocally what to do in each moral dilemma is nonsense. Believer or not, your actions come down to decisions you make based on what you think is right. You can't escape responsibility by hiding under the cowls of religion. You decided to adopt that religion.

That is probably why such wealthy people have moved all their factories to China, just next-door from here. — alcontali

Probably. So we collectivise to put pressure on China too.

stop lamenting that they should "bring back our jobs" because I do not see them doing that any time soon — alcontali

Why would I do that? I strive for what I think is right, not what I think is immanent.

alcontali

Anyone who shows such blatant disregard for the welfare of others as you show by your endorsement of a justice system which serves only the wealthy is a sociopath by definition. Asian, Greek, Jew, Christian, atheist... It's not the group identity, its the opinion. — Isaac

I never said that I endorse "a justice system which serves only the wealthy". I endorse serious religious law. Furthermore, I do not endorse needless or disparaging criticism on Asian, Greek, Jew, or Christian.

What measures 'complete', what smeasures 'real-world mileage', what measures 'system-less'? These seem like terms you arbitrarily apply to give post hoc justification for your dismissal of ideas which make you uncomfortable. — Isaac

Jewish law is a real system. Islamic law is a real system. Arbitrary remarks about "serving only the wealthy" is not a real system.

It's you reading the book, it's you deciding which imam to trust, it's you deciding how to interpret laws in each unique case. — Isaac

For a starters, Jewish law is adjudicated by Rabbis. It is Islamic law where you have Ulema and Mufti. I respect serious systems of morality. I have asked jurisprudential questions to serious religious scholars in the past, and I have received verifiable and absolutely satisfactory answers.

You can't escape responsibility by hiding under the cowls of religion. You decided to adopt that religion. — Isaac

Unlike atheism, which is a non-system, these religious systems of law and morality offer documented and complete answers to jurisprudential questions. Furthermore, you can verify the epistemology of the answer by double-checking the methodology in the answer. E.g. usul al fiqh:

Principles of Islamic jurisprudence, also known as Uṣūl al-fiqh (Arabic: أصول الفقه‎, lit. roots of fiqh), are traditional methodological principles used in Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) for deriving the rulings of Islamic law (sharia).

Therefore, it would be even possible to machine-mechanically verify these rulings. That is what I am really interested in: machine-mechanical verification of theorems/conclusions. It should be possible to achieve, and that is why I am really keen on it.

Atheism does not allow for that. It is just non-system bullshit. Where is the system? No epistemology. No verification procedures. What can I do with that? Nothing at all !

So we collectivise to put pressure on China too. — Isaac

Ha ah aha! Good luck with that!
Maybe try with Russia too!

I strive for what I think is right, not what I think is immanent. — Isaac

You have no real or serious system to determine what is right. You just raise some silly concern about wealthy people benefiting (who cares?) without complete system to figure out the implications or wider ramifications of what you are saying. You have no complete system as an alternative for Jewish law or Islamic law. That is where the bullshit is.

Isaac

I never said that I endorse "a justice system which serves only the wealthy" — alcontali

about wealthy people benefiting (who cares?) — alcontali

Jewish law is a real system. Islamic law is a real system. Arbitrary remarks about "serving only the wealthy" is not a real system. — alcontali

What measures 'real'? And you might try to actually answer the other questions you dodged too.

For a starters, Jewish law is adjudicated by Rabbis. It is Islamic law where you have Ulema and Mufti. I respect serious systems of morality. I have asked jurisprudential questions to serious religious scholars in the past, and I have received verifiable and absolutely satisfactory answers. — alcontali

None of which has any bearing whatsoever on the fact that it's you who decided to go and ask them, you who interpreted what they said, you who decided to remain in their religion after they spoke to you. It's still all you making these choices. Even if you had your stupid machine someone would still have to program it and you'd still have to decide whether to trust this programmer or that one, each time they delivered an edict.

Atheism does not allow for that. — alcontali

Yes it does, the device in question is a brain.

without complete system to figure out the implications or wider ramifications of what you are saying. — alcontali

How do you know the other systems have worked out the complete implications of what they say?

alcontali

What measures 'real'? — Isaac

That question translates into: How much of a fragment of the system is sufficient to still achieve the goal of adjudicating the question of halal (permissible) versus haram (impermissible) behaviour?

Unfortunately, the exercise has never been done with Jewish or Islamic law. It would require a complete encoding of their foundational rules in an executable version of the language of first-order logic. This is considered "hard work":

What is Coq? Coq is a formal proof management system. It provides a formal language to write mathematical definitions, executable algorithms and theorems together with an environment for semi-interactive development of machine-checked proofs.

It is considered much "harder" than encoding the basic rules in traditional prenex normal form. Prenex is unfortunately not unambiguous enough to successfully achieve machine-mechanical verifiability.

This exercise has been done, however, with the theory of arithmetic (which is simpler). The default, standard theory is Dedekind-Peano, while several simplified theories of arithmetic have been tested for their system-level properties, such as, Presburger, Skolem, and Robinson. The exercise was systematized into the Z2 second-order theory of arithmetic by David Hilbert. The Koreans have sponsored the entire encoding of Z2 (and its main subsystems) in Coq. It was undoubtedly a costly affair.

If I could find sufficient funding to do this for Jewish law and/or Islamic law, I would certainly want to work on the project, and hire a team to try to pull it off. It is a "hard" project, because successfully encoding theory of arithmetic was already a feat.

Even if you had your stupid machine someone would still have to program it and you'd still have to decide whether to trust this programmer or that one, each time they delivered an edict. — Isaac

A machine is a program, and a program is a machine. In this context, the term "machine" does not mean hardware. It probably means the Coq or Isabelle proof assistants. Coq is spearheaded by a French team and Isabelle by a German team. In my impression, Coq has gained more traction than Isabelle, but that situation could still end up reversed in the future.

The profile for this kind of work is not really a programmer but a mathematician. Still, this person must be able to handle machine-verifiable formalisms, which are notoriously harder than standard prenex. Furthermore, unlike what you may expect, the scripts are not 100% declarative. The proof verification tactics have important imperative aspects. So, he will end up doing some programming too. In that sense, these scripts are not pure math either.

Yes it does, the device in question is a brain. — Isaac

No, no, no. Atheism is system-less bullshit. There is simply nothing to encode in a proof assistant. So, what brain would you need for atheism? What skills? Atheism is stuff for idiots. Either you reason within a system, or else about a system, because in all other cases, you are doing system-less bullshit.

How do you know the other systems have worked out the complete implications of what they say? — Isaac

Theory of arithmetic has important system-wide, emergent properties. Theory of logic too. You can check e.g. the Hilbert-Ackermann calculi for that.

For example, Dedekind-Peano (=standard arithmetic) is semantically complete, syntactically incomplete, and system-wide consistent (according to Gentzen's proof).

It is not sure what the "complete implications" would mean as a system-wide property.

For example, statements in arithmetic are recursively enumerable at or below the maximum treshold $\sum_{0}^{1}$ in the arithmetic hierarchy. If the set of such statements is not even recursively enumerable (=above treshold), then their "complete implications" cannot be determined (meaning: the list of all statements provable in that system). There will simply be no algorithm possible to traverse that set.

Religious law is a rigorous axiomatic system which rests on a finitary number of basic beliefs. Still, it may take even more work than for arithmetic theory or logic theory to uncover its formal system properties. But then again, that looks like an interesting challenge to me.

Echarmion

Therefore, it would be even possible to machine-mechanically verify these rulings. That is what I am really interested in: machine-mechanical verification of theorems/conclusions. It should be possible to achieve, and that is why I am really keen on it. — alcontali

Any system that relies on a text written in a natural language is going to require textual interpretation. Textual interpretation is never going to be machine-mechanically verifiable, because the text simply doesn't contain the necessary information.

When we get to legal matters, there is also the additional value judgement of applying a given law to a given set of circumstances, which is also not verifiable.

alcontali

Any system that relies on a text written in a natural language is going to require textual interpretation. Textual interpretation is never going to be machine-mechanically verifiable, because the text simply doesn't contain the necessary information. — Echarmion

It will be necessary to encode the text in formal language. The following example:

All men are mortals.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is a mortal.

results in the following translation alternative in the Coq proof assistant:

assert Syllogism {
  all Socrates: univ, Man, Mortal: set univ |
      -- every man is mortal
      Man in Mortal
      -- Socrates is a man
      and (Socrates in Man)
      -- implies Socrates is mortal
      implies Socrates in Mortal
  }

check Syllogism

The formalism is flexible, though. So, it may be possible to reduce the amount of boilerplate required in the encoding. There is indeed syntactic overhead (and even noise) to consider. Still, experience is gradually growing. I think it may become quite usable some day.

When we get to legal matters, there is also the additional value judgement of applying a given law to a given set of circumstances, which is also not verifiable. — Echarmion

"Additional value judgment" is exactly what we want to avoid.

I stick to the Church-Turing thesis in that regard. If there does not exist a purely mechanical procedure to verify a justification, then the statement being justified is not formal knowledge.

HereToDisscuss

↪alcontali

Well, there is another problem with the Islamic system-: What does it accomplish, exactly, besides making the victim's family -since this is mostly about murder- feel better, if the person pays the money? Them paying will not change their behaviour and won't deter them from doing such things in the future, and is only defendable if one commits to the assumption that punishment is carried out in order to get revenge, which in itself is suspect to heavy doubt and i would like you to justify why we should think of punishment in that way.

Also, no, to convert it to formal language -which doesn't need to be done in pure code and i do not get the need to use Coq since classical logic would probably be fine, but that's another matter-, you need to figure out what the text meant by certain statements so that you can use them but that requires textual interpreation. Albeit, even if you did convert it to formal language, none of our relevant problems would have been solved as the premises would've still needed justification.

Isaac

↪alcontali

You're making several basic errors in your fanaticism.

1. Morality is not necessarily rational in it's objectives, it is rational in its method for achieving them. The desire for state of affairs X to be the case is a feeling, not a rational judgement. Identifying that state of affairs Y is actually the case is part feeling, part rational judgement (comparing Y to X in its component features). Determining how to get from state of affairs Y to state of affairs X is a rational judgement based on whatever socioeconomic/physical system of theories you subscribe to.

2. In order to use some religious writing as a system for turning moral decisions into computable deductions, you would have to have "follow text X" as a moral objective. You haven't escaped the fact that moral judgements begin with feelings, you've just subsumed all subsequent reference to feeling under one initial feeling that text X is the one to follow.

3. Having chosen text X you have to repeat this feeling each time it delivers an instruction because it is not a one-time judgement. Each time the text delivers that you should do X, your mind will deliver either a sense of agreement or a sense of dispute. You have to decide afresh for each dilemma whether you will continue to believe the text or follow your contrary feelings.

4. Notwithsatnding the above, you still have to translate the words, sentences and paragraphs into some understanding in your mind as to what to do. No system of logic can interact directly with your mind and no system of logic can communicate results in a format where interpretation is not required (@Echarmion has already mentioned this, but I thought I'd re-iterate for completeness). No system is immune to the problems of incomplete data having been input, no system is immune to the problem of missing variables and no system is immune to the problem of interfacing with the human mind which ultimately has to carry out the instruction.

5. You're assuming, without any justification offered, that the human mind is not itself a system. Simply because you don't fully know it's workings does not mean it is demonstrably not a fully complete system. You would not expect a child to fully know the workings of religious systems, but to have faith that they are complete. It is no less reasonable to have faith that the human mind is a complete system, evolutionarily designed to deliver instructions on how to live. A system which can be interrogated by introspection.

Banno

The first concern should be victim compensation. — alcontali

Why?

alcontali

Well, there is another problem with the Islamic system-: What does it accomplish, exactly, besides making the victim's family -since this is mostly about murder- feel better, if the person pays the money? — HereToDisscuss

If it accomplishes that already, i.e. making the victim's family feel better, it would at least accomplish something.

Them paying will not change their behaviour and won't deter them from doing such things in the future, and is only defendable if one commits to the assumption that punishment is carried out in order to get revenge, which in itself is suspect to heavy doubt and i would like you to justify why we should think of punishment in that way. — HereToDisscuss

Diyya (victim compensation) (or forgiveness) is an optional alternative to qisas (equal retaliation), but it is not mandatory:

Quran 5:45: We ordained therein for them: "Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal." But if any one remits the retaliation by way of charity, it is an act of atonement for himself. And if any fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (No better than) wrong-doers.

The victim's family will not readily think of forgiveness (or victim compensation) as an act of atonement for themselves, if the perpetrator does not repent. Again, this system has thousands of years of mileage. It was already included in the Torah. I have never heard anybody with first-hand, practical experience with the system, heard complaining about it.

Also, no, to convert it to formal language -which doesn't need to be done in pure code and i do not get the need to use Coq since classical logic would probably be fine, but that's another matter-, you need to figure out what the text meant by certain statements so that you can use them but that requires textual interpreation. — HereToDisscuss

The manual approach to textual interpretation is not suitable for a purely mechanical verification procedure. We won't make progress if we keep doing that.

How should we carry out punishment?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions