Does anyone deserve to suffer?

Message

Hype · #1 Post by **Hype** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:02 pm

This came up in another thread. But I am curious what people here think. I'd like to know what people's intuitions are about whether just really bad people deserve to suffer (but just the ones who can't be shown to be of diminished responsibility? Or those too? Even retarded criminals who were abused as children?)

I get the impulse to *FEEL* the Babylonian "Lex Talionis" response ("an eye for an eye", it's not originally from the Bible, it's from Babylonian law from 5,000 years ago), but I also think that this fails to actually make sense of why bad things happen. I could say more about this, but I'd rather let other people weigh in first.

#2 Post by **Juana** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:12 pm

Yes and no. Not all criminals deserve it. I believe also you think that I meant suffer as in harm, or something like that. I believe locking them in a room and allowing them to know that they will never live anywhere but that little box forever is suffering enough.

Hype · #3 Post by **Hype** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:22 pm

Juana wrote:Yes and no. Not all criminals deserve it. I believe also you think that I meant suffer as in harm, or something like that. I believe locking them in a room and allowing them to know that they will never live anywhere but that little box forever is suffering enough.

There's a view of what justice is that takes the purpose of it to be retribution. (It's called "Retributive Justice", aptly enough...) On this view, the goal of the criminal justice system should be to provide retribution for the victims of wrongs. There's a guy in my department who works on this directly... I think he and I agree, but my reasons are rooted in my view that no one actually chooses to do anything absolutely freely, and so there is always an explanation that can be given for why people do things we recognize as bad, and we should set up society to prevent these things from happening, as well as treating those who we do not reach humanely, even after they commit acts of inhumanity.

Immanuel Kant, the famous moral philosopher from Germany, agrees with you, that there's a sense in which people can deserve to suffer in the sense you say -- the idea being that as a MORAL being, once you recognize that you have done wrong, you do deserve to suffer somewhat, in that you deserve to feel bad/pain (maybe just emotional pain) or regret/remorse at the thought of your having done something you now wish you hadn't done. It's actually this view that I disagree with. Sociopaths cannot suffer in this way, and yet of those who commit the most evil acts, these are usually the worst (because they are not merely CHOOSING not to feel empathy toward their victims... they are literally incapable of it.) So it is unintelligible to say that such people deserve to suffer, since they cannot suffer (at least, in the relevant way). It is absurd, but we should think about what to do with such people. For non-sociopathic criminals, we should ask whether given their capacity to suffer, they, but not those who lack that capacity, deserve to suffer. I take it that it makes no sense to say this, since this suffering adds nothing important. (Or maybe it does... Do you think suffering is something some bad people should go through, because it adds something good to the world? What is it that it adds? Why is this good?)

#4 Post by **Juana** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:29 pm

Most criminals were made that way by their thought processes and their environment. Serial killers for examples have a certain life (in most cases) before they start killing, where as remove them from that environment put them in the Ivy League elite and then they're the leaders of Enron and ruining thousands of lives instead of just 10-20. The justice system is what it is, I agree more with fencing those criminals off and keeping them from harming the rest of society. Then maybe watching them we can see how they interact and get a better understanding of those personalities before they turn into monsters and "fix" them.

As for suffering, I think taking away someones "freedom" and keeping them away from harming others is enough.

Hype · #5 Post by **Hype** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:32 pm

Juana wrote:As for suffering, I think taking away someones "freedom" and keeping them away from harming others is enough.

I think the question is more about what it would mean to *DESERVE* that... rather than just saying that it's warranted given that we don't know what the hell else to do with these people.

#6 Post by **Juana** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:48 pm

Adurentibus Spina wrote:
Juana wrote:As for suffering, I think taking away someones "freedom" and keeping them away from harming others is enough.
I think the question is more about what it would mean to *DESERVE* that... rather than just saying that it's warranted given that we don't know what the hell else to do with these people.

Well obviously if you rape and murder 30 people, probably not a good idea to have you with the rest of society where you can just keep on rapin and a killin... but when you do that it also opens up the other can of worms that I think both of us agreed on with these socio/psychopathic personalities running corporations because while they may not be directly hurting people their actions and their love of power causes them to ruin hundreds if not millions of lives. I do not think that sectioning them off from the rest of "normal" society is a "deserving suffering" but more so what desert does the rest of society have? When they're not hurting anyone and not causing problems. There has to be a balance. I believe that is why the justice system is so fucked in this country because we use emotional means to see what people "deserve". I'm guilty of it, all the time. But taking that emotion out of everything will make us nothing more than drones. The only reason we have the death penalty is because of those stupid emotions.

I view it along the lines of cause an effect. If person Y, does activity X and ends up with Z... they got what they were going to get, thus deserved. But the flaw in that is that what about victims of crime? Did they deserve what happened to them because of the choices that they made? It opens a whole other subject. (see I do think, I don't just blindly bait my beliefs out there).

Basically we do not look into the causes of the cause. Much like cancers, we treat the symptoms but do not stop the cause. I believe that is why especially in the US we view things the way that we do for the most part. We're (including me) are just too ignorant to things to change those thought processes.

Also, lol I did bait you with my comment in the other thread.

I figured it would be an interesting thread.

#7 Post by **Artemis** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:56 pm

The answer to the question depends partly on where we were raised. I am thinking specifically of Norway where their criminal justce system is based on restorative justice. Like, that Breivek guy who killed all those people is getting 21 years. He was declared sane too.

I guess the answers will vary depending on how we define suffering. I guess I don't really think about suffering and if people deserve to suffer. In the case of people suffering from illnesses like cancer, I do not believe anybody deserves that.

In the case of criminals or and other abusers, I believe they suffer because the quality of their lives is poor.

Hype · #8 Post by **Hype** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:57 pm

Good points.

This one is especially interesting:

I view it along the lines of cause an effect. If person Y, does activity X and ends up with Z... they got what they were going to get, thus deserved. But the flaw in that is that what about victims of crime? Did they deserve what happened to them because of the choices that they made? It opens a whole other subject. (see I do think, I don't just blindly bait my beliefs out there).

Basically we do not look into the causes of the cause. Much like cancers, we treat the symptoms but do not stop the cause. I believe that is why especially in the US we view things the way that we do for the most part. We're (including me) are just too ignorant to things to change those thought processes.

There has been a persistent "blame the victim" culture when it comes to certain crimes, especially crimes involving women. Most notably is this thing about rape. Somehow, ever since there has been rape, women have somehow been taking part of the blame. In the ancient world, the women were seen as "seductresses" who caused men to rape them by being too sexy. That is the source of the standard religious beliefs that women should dress "modestly" (and this is, of course, taken to an extreme in Islam). Unfortunately, how a woman dresses literally has nothing to do with whether or not she will be raped. And this has to still be repeated, because many men (and some women) still believe that women are partially to blame for being raped because they "dressed like a slut" or "went to the wrong part of town". Sorry, but that misses the point entirely. The point is that RAPE is wrong, not dressing "slutty" (which isn't even a thing -- a woman could be standing in front of you naked, possibly masturbating, and it's still wrong to touch her unless she consents...) The causal explanation for rape is totally out of whack with what actually happens.

Likewise, we tend to screw up what causes killers to kill really badly. The idea of "motive" is, I think, a huge mistake that we've embedded in criminal investigations. We treat "motive" as if it were "explanation", when often it is nothing more than a trigger which made manifest some latent tendency that was caused in some other way. This is exactly what goes wrong in blaming the victim in rapes... we confuse "dressing slutty" with "causing someone to want to rape a woman". They aren't the same. Likewise, neither is "being bullied" THE cause of "shooting up a school" (see: Columbine).

#9 Post by **Juana** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 5:12 pm

We agree fully here, because there is always the blame the victim especially when you talk about "deserves".

This is also along the lines of our obsessions with running other's lives. Things like intervention and shows like that show it. WE think WE know what is best for THEM, and what they deserve.

Hype · #10 Post by **Hype** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 5:21 pm

Juana wrote:We agree fully here, because there is always the blame the victim especially when you talk about "deserves".

This is also along the lines of our obsessions with running other's lives. Things like intervention and shows like that show it. WE think WE know what is best for THEM, and what they deserve.

Well, I think sometimes we do know how others ought to be treated (but usually I restrict this to the negation of some form of treatment, because it's easier). For example, we might say: women don't deserve to to be treated as second-class citizens. This is easy because it doesn't attempt to assert something positive, it just negates something that is already the case. What we really mean is, usually, that someone or some group deserves to be treated the way others already are. (Hence: gays deserve to be able to get married, black people deserve to be able go to university, etc.)

It's interesting that in the case of "No one deserves to suffer." this doesn't seem as easy to establish as those other cases.

#11 Post by **Matz** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:11 pm

Adurentibus Spina wrote:
Juana wrote:Yes and no. Not all criminals deserve it. I believe also you think that I meant suffer as in harm, or something like that. I believe locking them in a room and allowing them to know that they will never live anywhere but that little box forever is suffering enough.
There's a view of what justice is that takes the purpose of it to be retribution. (It's called "Retributive Justice", aptly enough...) On this view, the goal of the criminal justice system should be to provide retribution for the victims of wrongs. There's a guy in my department who works on this directly... I think he and I agree, but my reasons are rooted in my view that no one actually chooses to do anything absolutely freely, and so there is always an explanation that can be given for why people do things we recognize as bad, and we should set up society to prevent these things from happening, as well as treating those who we do not reach humanely, even after they commit acts of inhumanity.

Immanuel Kant, the famous moral philosopher from Germany, agrees with you, that there's a sense in which people can deserve to suffer in the sense you say -- the idea being that as a MORAL being, once you recognize that you have done wrong, you do deserve to suffer somewhat, in that you deserve to feel bad/pain (maybe just emotional pain) or regret/remorse at the thought of your having done something you now wish you hadn't done. It's actually this view that I disagree with. Sociopaths cannot suffer in this way, and yet of those who commit the most evil acts, these are usually the worst (because they are not merely CHOOSING not to feel empathy toward their victims... they are literally incapable of it.) So it is unintelligible to say that such people deserve to suffer, since they cannot suffer (at least, in the relevant way). It is absurd, but we should think about what to do with such people. For non-sociopathic criminals, we should ask whether given their capacity to suffer, they, but not those who lack that capacity, deserve to suffer. I take it that it makes no sense to say this, since this suffering adds nothing important. (Or maybe it does... Do you think suffering is something some bad people should go through, because it adds something good to the world? What is it that it adds? Why is this good?)

but a sociopath knows the difference between right and wrong, and they'll often go to great lenghts to seek out their victims and attack where they can get away with it. So don't they then deserve to suffer?! They're not like a Nile crocodile fx that's eaten a tourist and has no fuckin idea that what it did was horrible and that it will cause a lot of grief etc.

Society agrees with me cause you'll find a ton of sociopaths in prisons around the world at any time.

To your question 'Why is this good?' I'll say it's good for the victims of a sociopath fx that he's fx now locked up in a tiny cell somewhere with no freedom, he's bored, a lot of the things he enjoyed are now cut off etc. Trust me he's suffering all right. That's one very good thing. But most sociopaths get away with whatever shit they're doing. Whether it's beating their wives or whatever that's the sad thing

Hype · #12 Post by **Hype** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:24 pm

You confuse a few things there, Matz, but in interesting ways (that almost everyone confuses). In fact, sociopaths (and sociopathic children) exhibit IMPAIRED moral reasoning. They are able to manipulate others, and can provide the socially "correct" answers when they are disciplined, but when they are actually tested, they show deficits in certain brain regions relating to empathy (and perhaps other things).

There's a clear difference between *knowing* that everyone else thinks killing kittens is wrong, and *feeling* that I shouldn't do it, or *feeling bad* about doing it. Sociopaths do not feel bad when they do things, even if there's a vague sense in which they sometimes may "know" that it's wrong.

Normal people feel bad. You'll never be able to force a sociopath to *feel* that way, no matter how much you make them suffer. In fact, they're more likely to feign suffering to manipulate you into doing what they want you to do than you are to actually make them truly suffer.

It's your view that I think causes serious problems. There is some evidence that children who exhibit sociopathic tendencies can be taught *intellectual morality* that MAY compensate for their complete and utter lack of emotional morality, but evidence of this is tentative, at best.

And after all that, it's unclear to me why anyone should think such people *deserve* to suffer, nor why it's good.

Essence_Smith · #13 Post by **Essence_Smith** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:15 pm

I don't think it matters whether or not people deserve to suffer, because many that do suffer definitely don't...

Hype · #14 Post by **Hype** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:21 pm

Essence_Smith wrote:I don't think it matters whether or not people deserve to suffer, because many that do suffer definitely don't...

Peter Singer's been saying that for a long time. But I think the question of whether *anyone* deserves to suffer can change our attitude about what suffering is, and how hard we really ought to work to help others avoid it, and stop others from perpetrating or permitting it.

How long can we "watch the world burn", as it were, without stepping in? If you believe each individual ought to be in charge of his or her own suffering alone (i.e., "no one is his brother's keeper") then you get very callous attitudes toward the 5+ billion people who live in far worse situations than any of us in the more or less affluent 1 billion.

Pandemonium · #15 Post by **Pandemonium** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:22 pm

You can earn suffering as surely as you can earn redemption.

Hype · #16 Post by **Hype** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:23 pm

Pandemonium wrote:You can earn suffering as surely as you can earn redemption.

Can one earn either of those? If so, how does one earn them?

I don't think you can, though.

#17 Post by **Artemis** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:31 pm

so what about budhists then?
don't they belive that life is suffering? if so, then suffering is just the normal state of all of us.

Hype · #18 Post by **Hype** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:43 pm

Artemis wrote:so what about budhists then?
don't they belive that life is suffering? if so, then suffering is just the normal state of all of us.

Yeah. Gautama Buddha (the original Buddha, Siddartha) was a prince who left his compound and saw, according to legend, three cases of straight-up suffering (I forget exactly what they are... old man, beggar, ... something...) And his idea was that there should be a way to show people how to live in a way that may lead to an escape from suffering (dukkha).

I think even Buddha would say that no one deserves to suffer though. This might be a major difference from Hinduism, in which "you" "earned" your suffering in your deeds in your previous life. (Buddhists *may* believe this too, it's unclear).

Christians are the worst when it comes to suffering though. Think of the equation of "virtue" with the priest flagellating himself.

#19 Post by **Juana** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 9:22 pm

Buddhism does try to teach you how to escape suffering but living a better life.

Pandemonium · #20 Post by **Pandemonium** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 9:41 pm

Adurentibus Spina wrote:
Pandemonium wrote:You can earn suffering as surely as you can earn redemption.
Can one earn either of those? If so, how does one earn them?

I don't think you can, though.

Sure you can. Get ta listening to Springsteen's "Nebraska" like I suggested or even some old Johnny Cash, you'll understand.

Pandemonium · #21 Post by **Pandemonium** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 9:43 pm

Adurentibus Spina wrote:Christians are the worst when it comes to suffering though. Think of the equation of "virtue" with the priest flagellating himself.

That's self-loathing. Big difference.

Hype · #22 Post by **Hype** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 9:47 pm

Pandemonium wrote:
Adurentibus Spina wrote:
Pandemonium wrote:You can earn suffering as surely as you can earn redemption.
Can one earn either of those? If so, how does one earn them?

I don't think you can, though.
Sure you can. Get ta listening to Springsteen's "Nebraska" like I suggested or even some old Johnny Cash, you'll understand.

I think we may mean different things here. Cash's stuff is steeped in Christian-type thinking, so obviously he would think you can. The problem is that appealing to those guys just "begs the question" (a technical term meaning you try to prove your point by presupposing your point already).

I was hoping you'd offer some of your own thoughts about why you think you could *deserve* to suffer (I take it you think that 'earning suffering' is the same thing -- you deserve what you earn?) Maybe you just agree with Cash, etc., but then I want to know why you do.

Hype · #23 Post by **Hype** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 9:48 pm

Pandemonium wrote:
Adurentibus Spina wrote:Christians are the worst when it comes to suffering though. Think of the equation of "virtue" with the priest flagellating himself.
That's self-loathing. Big difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellant

At first, flagellation became a form of penance in the Catholic Church, especially in ascetic monastic orders. For example, the 11th century zealot Dominicus Loricatus once repeated the entire Psalter twenty times in one week, accompanying each psalm with a hundred lash-strokes to his back. The distinction of the Flagellants was to take this self-mortification into the cities and other public spaces as a demonstration of piety. As well as flagellation, the rituals were built around processions, hymns, distinct gestures, uniforms, and discipline. It was also said that when singing a hymn and upon reaching the part about the passion of the Christ, one must drop to the ground, no matter how dirty or painful the area may seem. Also one mustn't move if the ground has something on it that may cause an inconvenience.

Cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redemptive_suffering

#24 Post by **Juana** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 10:01 pm

Adurentibus Spina wrote:
Pandemonium wrote:
Adurentibus Spina wrote:
Pandemonium wrote:You can earn suffering as surely as you can earn redemption.
Can one earn either of those? If so, how does one earn them?

I don't think you can, though.
Sure you can. Get ta listening to Springsteen's "Nebraska" like I suggested or even some old Johnny Cash, you'll understand.
I think we may mean different things here. Cash's stuff is steeped in Christian-type thinking, so obviously he would think you can. The problem is that appealing to those guys just "begs the question" (a technical term meaning you try to prove your point by presupposing your point already).

I was hoping you'd offer some of your own thoughts about why you think you could *deserve* to suffer (I take it you think that 'earning suffering' is the same thing -- you deserve what you earn?) Maybe you just agree with Cash, etc., but then I want to know why you do.

Well I mean you can say that about the Blues and what not when it comes too Christian-type thinking, ironically it was formed by people that were treated as second class citizens that were suffering.

Hype · #25 Post by **Hype** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 10:05 pm

Juana wrote:
Adurentibus Spina wrote:
Pandemonium wrote:
Adurentibus Spina wrote:
Pandemonium wrote:You can earn suffering as surely as you can earn redemption.
Can one earn either of those? If so, how does one earn them?

I don't think you can, though.
Sure you can. Get ta listening to Springsteen's "Nebraska" like I suggested or even some old Johnny Cash, you'll understand.
I think we may mean different things here. Cash's stuff is steeped in Christian-type thinking, so obviously he would think you can. The problem is that appealing to those guys just "begs the question" (a technical term meaning you try to prove your point by presupposing your point already).

I was hoping you'd offer some of your own thoughts about why you think you could *deserve* to suffer (I take it you think that 'earning suffering' is the same thing -- you deserve what you earn?) Maybe you just agree with Cash, etc., but then I want to know why you do.
Well I mean you can say that about the Blues and what not when it comes too Christian-type thinking, ironically it was formed by people that were treated as second class citizens that were suffering.

There is an irony there, but it's not unintelligible... That's what Stockholm syndrome is... "owning your suffering" or "owning your servitude" (see: the myth of Sisyphus) are pretty common things humans do... in the face of serious hardship, many humans adapt by convincing themselves that it isn't suffering, or by being proud of it, or creating rituals surrounding controlled kinds of suffering (this is typical of tribal "manhood" rituals).

It makes perfect evolutionary sense, since animals that can't find a way to cope with suffering will probably not survive it and pass those genes on.

Aint No Right