Is retributive justice just? (moral philosophy question)

[TheDefaultMan]

Is retributive justice, given natural law ethics, just?

Think about it, it would surely be contrary to your natural ends if you were beaten by someone or if you were thrown into a prison cell or if you were killed, but for some reason these are allowed under natural law provided the state does them.

I don’t really understand this though, because what you have done in the past doesn’t seem to change your natural ends, so it would still seem contrary to natural law if the government did this to give you retribution.

So how is it justified under natural law for the government to be able to do this to give you retribution if your natural ends don’t change?

Thanks.

(PS: This is a question purely on natural law moral philosophy, I’d appreciate it if you didn’t make appeals to scripture or to God’s commands in your response)

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

How do you propose to deal with people who hurt other people?

 

[Beryllos]

but for some reason these are allowed under natural law provided the state does them.

Are you sure of this? Restorative justice might be more in line with natural law than retributive justice. The word restorative here is used in the sense of restoring a just relationship between parties, or between the offender and society. Imprisonment might be seen as retributive (i.e., punishing the offender), or restorative (protecting society from the offender).

 

[Wesrock]

I think retributive justice can be just. But I dont have time to expand on that now.

 

[Wesrock]

TheDefaultMan:

but for some reason these are allowed under natural law provided the state does them.

Are you sure of this? Restorative justice might be more in line with natural law than retributive justice. The word restorative here is used in the sense of restoring a just relationship between parties, or between the offender and society. Imprisonment might be seen as retributive (i.e., punishing the offender), or restorative (protecting society from the offender).

Retribution shouldn’t be contrasted with restorative, it should be contrasted with rehabilitative. Certainly those who argue in favor of retribution would consider it restorative, as it is said to restore the balance of justice in the natural order.

Or to out it another way, I think a better word to describe for what you meanl, and more in line with the commonly used terminology, is rehabilitative punishment.

Also, my position is regarding retributive justice full stop. Man’s use of retributive justice is more complicated sub-topic.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

Are you asking about the difference between discipline and punishment?

 

[SPBlitz]

I don’t think it’s possible to completely remove retributive justice from justice.
As CS Lewis pointed out in the Problem of the Pain:
“Some enlightened people would like to banish all conceptions of retribution or desert from their theory of punishment and place its value wholly in the deterrence of others or the reform of the criminal himself. They do not see that by so doing they render all punishment unjust. What can be more immoral than to inflict suffering on me for the sake of deterring others if I do not deserve it? And if I do deserve it, you are admitting the claims of ‘retribution’. And what can be more outrageous than to catch me and submit me to a disagreeable process of moral improvement without my consent, unless (once more) I deserve it?”

 

[Beryllos]

I agree with Lewis on at least two points: Punishing one person in order to set an example for others is unjust, and you can’t rehabilitate someone who doesn’t want to be rehabilitated.

 

[Beryllos]

Retribution shouldn’t be contrasted with restorative, it should be contrasted with rehabilitative .

Rehabilitation is a subclass (a kind) of restoration, as I see it.

Certainly those who argue in favor of retribution would consider it restorative, as it is said to restore the balance of justice in the natural order.

Depends on what you call justice and what you call natural order. An eye for an eye restores a balance – both parties are equally blind – but the disorder (blindness) is doubled.

Or to put it another way, I think a better word to describe for what you meant, and more in line with the commonly used terminology, is rehabilitative punishment.

That’s not what I meant, but it is an interesting (and for me difficult) juxtaposition: rehabilitation together with punishment. I’ll have to think about that.