Punitive Social Justice

[Bubba_Switzler]

I had an interesting discussion over lunch with a Jewish friend the other day.

He was having some difficulties with Big Company. Basically, his service was not working and they refused to send a repairman to resolve it.

Eventually Big Company found a way to resolve the problem without sending a repairman by sending a new product. While this solved my friends problem it did not satisfy him because they had wasted so much of his time.

Now my friend is plotting revenge. I pointed out that there was not benefit to him to pursue revenge.

I could not, for the life of me, convince him to be satisfied with the resolution of the problem. Not only did he reject this option but he castigated me as typical of what is causing the ruination of this country. People like me who accept bad service are just like people who find a way to live under tyranical dictatorships. We are freeloaders on those who fight for social justice.

I argued that, to the contrary, it is the social justice warriors who are ruining the nation and the world. Examples range from college students crushing free speech and thought and the Islamic State exterminating people. I threw in the example of college students crusdading against Israel just to tease him a bit.

Now my friend knows that I am Catholic, and he is familiar with the Christian admonition to “turn the other cheek” and he hinted that he regarded this as immoral. I, for my part, had never before witnessed such a burning self-righteous zeal for “an eye for an eye”.

 

[stinkcat_14]

There is nothing in Catholic teaching that forbids punitive justice. For example, I was once hit by a drunk driver and the damage I received was restored by the drunk’s insurance company. However, I did tell the DA that the drunk did deserve jail time in my opinion. While that was punitive, it was not immoral. The problem with punitive justice in economic matters is that the link between the punishment and the crime is sometimes not explicit, For example, I know someone whose employer cheated him out of pay. He got even by taking supplies equal to what he was owed. There is nothing inherently immoral about that, as long as all other avenues of seeking justice have been utilized first. But the employer never new directly about the justice, so he couldn’t learn his lesson.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

There is nothing in Catholic teaching that forbids punitive justice. For example, I was once hit by a drunk driver and the damage I received was restored by the drunk’s insurance company. However, I did tell the DA that the drunk did deserve jail time in my opinion. While that was punitive, it was not immoral. The problem with punitive justice in economic matters is that the link between the punishment and the crime is sometimes not explicit, For example, I know someone whose employer cheated him out of pay. He got even by taking supplies equal to what he was owed. There is nothing inherently immoral about that, as long as all other avenues of seeking justice have been utilized first. But the employer never new directly about the justice, so he couldn’t learn his lesson.

Of course, the fact that the Church does not forbid punitive justice does not mean that it is ok, much less morally required, to engage in the practice personally and extralegally.

A term that might add some precision here is vigilantism.

Further. I think that it’s important to be precise so I’ll explain better what I mean by punishment. For the purpose of this discussion, a punishment is not a compensation but a harm caused without compensation. Thus, for example, the employee who takes supplies equal to what he was cheated is not punishing but seeking redress extralegally. If, insead, he caused an equal amount of damage to equipment that would be punitive in the sense I mean here.

Punishment is destruction for the purpose of changing behavior. It might be justified in the long run. Your example fails also here as you yourself noticed.

So what we’re discussing here is vigilante punitive social justice.

 

[revert_jen]

Now my friend is plotting revenge. I pointed out that there was not benefit to him to pursue revenge.

I’m not sure that this issue is really about social justice, but leaving that aside, it depends on what kind of revenge he is contemplating. If his revenge is to publicize their behavior and try to increase dissatisfaction with the company that way, I can’t see anything wrong with it (except its probable pointlessness). Or he could make a complaint with the BBB or something.

Personally, the only “revenge” I’d be likely to take is to change my service provider, but if that’s not practical, I don’t see what he thinks he can do.

The fact that he is contemplating doing something that will not benefit him, but will punish a company for bad customer service isn’t inherently bad.

Of course, if his revenge involves something illegal, then that is going to be a moral problem as well. I don’t see how we can tell whether it’s OK without knowing what kind of revenge he means.

–Jen

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I’m not sure that this issue is really about social justice,…

This was exactly the more general issue he raised when we found how strongly we disagreed on this. His argument was that forsaking to punish the company I was rejecting social justice. In his mind, I was quite immoral.

…but leaving that aside, it depends on what kind of revenge he is contemplating. If his revenge is to publicize their behavior and try to increase dissatisfaction with the company that way, I can’t see anything wrong with it (except its probable pointlessness). Or he could make a complaint with the BBB or something.

Personally, the only “revenge” I’d be likely to take is to change my service provider, but if that’s not practical, I don’t see what he thinks he can do.

After I realized that I was not persuading him I made almost exactly the above suggestions. His ideas were much worse though, to be fair, they were not criminal if only barely. Essentially he had ideas about how to waste their time and resources.

The fact that he is contemplating doing something that will not benefit him, but will punish a company for bad customer service isn’t inherently bad.

Of course, if his revenge involves something illegal, then that is going to be a moral problem as well. I don’t see how we can tell whether it’s OK without knowing what kind of revenge he means.

Well, again, to my knowledge, nothing he is contemplating is illegal. It woudl be comparable to ordering a big meal at a restaurant and then walking out without eating it.

 

[Beryllos]

Your friend has very high expectations for customer service. Unrealistic expectations usually lead to disappointment.

Perhaps you could ask him to examine the service agreement (contract) and tell you which part they did not honor, and what recourse is specified. Had he read the agreement and understood the limitations of the service, his expectations probably would have been more in line with reality.

I hope his “revenge,” if he carries it out, does not directly impact other customers or personally impact employees of the targeted company (as, for example, destruction of company property would).

 

[Beryllos]

Revenge is a poison that you drink, expecting your enemy to die.

 

[Genesis315]

As others have pointed out we are not to take justice into our own hands. God has given public authority the right and power to execute justice and exact retribution–private vengeance usurps what is God’s.

Here’s what St. Thomas says in the Summa:

“He who takes vengeance on the wicked in keeping with his rank and position does not usurp what belongs to God but makes use of the power granted him by God. For it is written (Romans 13:4) of the earthly prince that “he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” If, however, a man takes vengeance outside the order of divine appointment, he usurps what is God’s and therefore sins.” (Secunda Secundæ Partis. Q108, Art. 1, Reply to Obj. 2)

Just a final note of clarification, a service or contract dispute is just a matter of individual justice (also called commutative or particular justice). This kind of justice involves one person’s claim of justice against another person. It is different from social justice. Social justice involves claims of justice of a person against the society he belongs to or society’s claim against one of its members person. Either way, while we are always to act justly, exacting vengeance on those who don’t is God’s prerogative, which He has also granted to public authorities, but not every individual.

 

[PolarGuy]

Wasting Big Company’s time and resources will only cause further delays and problems for other people who want/need customer service, thereby proving what Ghandi said…

…“an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.”

 

[Elizium23]

Revenge is a poison that you drink, expecting your enemy to die.

That’s “resentment”.

 

[Beryllos]

That’s “resentment”.

Yeah, although I think it is more true to say it of “hatred.”

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

There is another dimension to this: self- vs. other-directed correction.

The social justice advocate, such as my friend, is convinced that what ails the world is the behavior of other people, what Jesus called the speck in our brother’s eye. Implicit here is the idea that other people owe us something (e.g. good service). We are entitled.

The alternative view is that we must focus on reforming ourselves, to remove what Jesus called the plank in our own eye. Implicit here is that we should be grateful for what we receive from others even if it is imperfect.

 

[stinkcat_14]

There is another dimension to this: self- vs. other-directed correction.

The social justice advocate, such as my friend, is convinced that what ails the world is the behavior of other people, what Jesus called the speck in our brother’s eye. Implicit here is the idea that other people owe us something (e.g. good service). We are entitled.

The alternative view is that we must focus on reforming ourselves, to remove what Jesus called the plank in our own eye. Implicit here is that we should be grateful for what we receive from others even if it is imperfect.

In your friend’s case, he was owed something. A company had a contractual obligation that it was not fulfilling. That is not an entitlement mentality, an entitlement mentality is where one thinks they are owed something that they are not entitled to.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

In your friend’s case, he was owed something. A company had a contractual obligation that it was not fulfilling. That is not an entitlement mentality, an entitlement mentality is where one thinks they are owed something that they are not entitled to.

Was he? That’s not obvious to me. Did the company fail to fulfill it’s contractual obligation? If so, there is an established legal process for resolving that claim.

In our discussion, which I did not relate in full detail, he made it quite plain that he felt that businesses owed customers good service. It was not my impression that he was limiting himself to what was contracted (not that anyone reads these contracts anyway). For example, this contract required arbitration as a first step to resolution which he felt was unfair.

 

[Usagi]

Please don’t conflate this guy’s idea of personal justice/revenge with the larger concept of social justice (which the Church is, y’know, rather on board with). The Church would actually agree that individuals and companies have moral obligations beyond their strictly legal or contractual ones, but probably not that pettily wasting the company’s time and resources is the proper way to seek justice.

Also, please don’t conflate some college students’ unfortunate objections to freedom of speech (which I agree are foolish but at least come from a desire to see people treated rightly) with anything the Islamic State has ever done, which is not “social justice” by any measure.

Usagi

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Please don’t conflate this guy’s idea of personal justice/revenge with the larger concept of social justice (which the Church is, y’know, rather on board with). The Church would actually agree that individuals and companies have moral obligations beyond their strictly legal or contractual ones, but probably not that pettily wasting the company’s time and resources is the proper way to seek justice.

Also, please don’t conflate some college students’ unfortunate objections to freedom of speech (which I agree are foolish but at least come from a desire to see people treated rightly) with anything the Islamic State has ever done, which is not “social justice” by any measure.

I don’t conflate them, they are naturally conflated. We can draw useful distinctions if you like.

For example, you seem to be arguing that the Church, while sharing my friend’s sense of social justice, would object merely to his personal vendetta. That’s a valid, if small, point.

And I would not agree that college students are any more sincere than ISIS in their respective pursuits of social justice. ISIS is in hot pursuit of the Islamic ideal of a just society following, quite literally, the teaching of the Prophet Mohamed (PBUH).

You’ll have to do better if you mean to draw some distinctions.