Alsadi, Naseem

English

PhilPapers

AN INQUIRY CONCERNING JUST PUNISHMENTNaseem Alsadinalsadi@uoguelph.caMay 29, 2020In a society established on the foundations of just punishment, what is the moral implications of the practice ofnepotism in avoiding just punishment. The problem is one that deals with moral authority, and in specific, who isdesignated the responsibility of establishing a moral criteria? Such a question brings along with it a burden of immenseresponsibility. With a‘ prospective solution comes implications on the role of the sovereign and the citizens of the state,along with the legitimacy of legal punishment through the command of the sovereign. Such a discussion consequentlyunravels and unveils the raison d’être of a sovereign and a morally binding social contract.It will be shown throughout this paper that the establishment of a sovereign is a necessity and the legislationentailed by the erection of a sovereign are indispensable. Arguments will be laid out to support the formation of anobjective moral criteria; a moral criteria of universal implications, specifically implemented and legally coerced uponall individuals of the state by a higher authority than themselves. In doing so, we may come to know the raison d’êtreof the higher authority referred to as the sovereign and the ramifications of escaping justice. Furthermore, it will shownthat the practice of nepotism in not reporting loved ones for breaking the law, is undesirable when analyzed in totality.To begin, moral authority is discussed and in specific whether it ought to lie external to or within the individual.Philosophers and other great minds have taken an attempt at answering this problem, moving towards either amore subjective and individualistic solution, or a more objective and universal criteria. Immanuel Kant, a 18th centuryEnlightenment philosopher, argues for universal moral consistency, disregarding an agents environment and possibleoutcomes [2]. Opting for a rational, objective system, many Enlightenment philosophers such as Kant, set out to seeactions as entirely binding in of themselves and not sought out in effort to reach other ends. Telling the truth, therefore,is an end in of itself and not sought to make others happy. Leading to controversial conclusions such as the moralreprehensibility of deceiving potential murders about the location of their potential victims. On the other side of thecoin, we have moral individualism, which introduces a large amount of subjectivity into the moral criteria. Extendinginto branches such as egoism, which preaches a self-interest based consequentialism. Egoist philosophers assert that allagents ought to act from their own self-interest. Hence, a moral compass essentially becomes a product of an individualsenvironment and his own interests.Firstly, we begin our discourse by analyzing the implications of a purely subjective and individualistic moral criteria.When the responsibility of deriving a moral compass is designated towards to the individual, he himself becomesthe highest authority of moral guidance. This concept is comedically displayed in a 13th century Sufi tale about theSeljuq satirist, Mulla Nasr ud-Din Hojja, who was one day was appointed judge of the state. He was approached bytwo individuals, each attesting to their own side of a heated argument. The plaintiff went first, propounding a strong1argument for his case, leaving Nasr ud-Din no other choice but to reply, “Yes, you are right.” The defendant arose nextand powerfully asserted his argument, leaving Nasr ud-Din with no other choice but to reply, “Yes, you are right also”.In sheer amazement, the court registrar stood and proclaimed, “My lord, I cannot fathom how both the plaintiff and thedefendant can be right.” Nasr ud-Din, in a state of despair, replies, "Court registrar, you are right also." [3]This tale attempts to display the consequences of morality being in the eye of the beholder. This Sufi tale showcasesthat progress cannot be made when such a stance is taken and the absurdity of living without objective morality. Whenobjective morality is denied, the influence of the sovereign is greatly reduced. Without moral objectivity, the sovereignforfeits the ability to punish individuals on ethical grounds. Any attempt from the sovereign to punish citizens of thestate, on mere moral grounds, is an attempt to claim moral authority, which is unsupported and unfounded in moralsubjectivism.Without punishment, individuals are free to do as they please, whether that means harming or murdering others.Without a higher source of moral guidance, murderers are able to roam the street and unashamedly strike fear in thehearts of fellow citizens. Rapists, likewise, are free to impose their will and escape without punishment from a superiorauthority. Additionally, utilizing moral subjectivism, it can be proven that citizens of the state are not obliged to sacrificetheir self-interest for others or society as a whole. It follows that since an individual seeks only to follow self-interest hehas no moral responsibility to the state or his fellow citizens. A society where individuals have no moral responsibilityto fellow individuals or to the sovereign, is an unpredictable, unstable society, bound to lead to inevitable destructiveinternal conflicts.However, not all philosophical consensus conforms to this chaotic state of nature. Take the 17th century philosopherJohn Locke, who firmly presents his variant state of nature in his book the Second Treatise on Civil Government. Lockestates, "The State of Nature has a Law of Nature to govern it", referring to what many know as reason or common sense.Locke indicates throughout his writing that a state of nature is actually non-chaotic and that this reason, present inall individuals, teaches non-violence and respect for others’ liberty and property [5]. It is important to note however,that Locke’s reason is not a set of a priori principles. Locke postulates in his book, An Essay Concerning HumanUnderstanding, that our knowledge is obtained and derived from experience, and at birth we are nothing more thana blank slate [6]. Therefore, this law of nature that Locke is alluding to is derived a posteriori, from an individual’sexperience. This, however, presents a problem for Locke, if this law of nature is obtained from our experiences, andwe acknowledge that different people have different experiences, this law of nature is not universal, but rather quiterelative and subjective. Under Locke’s a posterori derived law of nature, if an individual’s reason is molded through2experience to justify the murder of innocent people, then no one can assert to this individual that his opinion is incorrector barbaric. Locke’s anarchic state of nature is a circumstance where individuals are free to do as they please and avoidlegal punishment, it is a circumstance bound to lead to chaotic ends.The only way to escape such fate is to establish a sovereign, who assumes moral authority over all individuals of thestate. The establishment of the sovereign therefore benefits individuals by securing their rights, and benefits society as awhole by punishing those who transgress moral boundaries. The sovereign therein can be seen as a total amenity to theoverall state of society. The sovereign exercises its total authority by utilizing mental and/or physical punishment tocompel individuals to follow the set moral standards. The sovereign formulates a set of legislations that aim to benefitsociety and the individuals that compose it. These legislations set the moral standard for individuals to live by, and theterms of punishment that they are involuntarily subject to.Therefore, it can be seen that through the means of legislation, the sovereign is able to benefit the individual, aswell as society. The individuals of the state should seek to ratify and uphold the legislations of the sovereign, to thehighest degree. Ensuring that the legislations of the sovereign are never disregarded nor neglected. Only through theselegislations can an individual’s rights be guaranteed. Thus, any attempt to compromise or disregard the legislationsadministered by the sovereign, is an attempt to injure the condition of the individual and society.In analyzing these legislations, their aims comes into view. That is, the aim of these legislations is to achieve truejustice. Thus, our conclusive statement can be rephrased as such, “The sovereign establishes justice to benefit theindividual by saving him from his prior state of chaos and insecurity.”Moving forward, we will analyze the implications of committing actions deemed morally reprehensible by thesovereign, and avoiding punishment. To begin this discussion we introduce a classical Socratic dialogue written byPlato, namely, the Gorgias. Here Socrates asserts that to avoid punishment for committing a wrongful action is to injureoneself (Gorgias 472 d-e). Therefore, to prevent a friend or family member from being met with a just punishment forcommitting a wrongful action, is to injure them. The practice of nepotism, hence, becomes undesirable and unfavourable.This proposition can be supported using various supplementary evidence/premises.Discord is present on the legitimacy of receiving just punishment. Acknowledging that justice is an amenityto the individual, the individual should therefore strive in aim of achieving and upholding justice. Thus, wheneverthe sovereign justly punishes the individual, through legal and just means, the merit of justice is bestowed upon theindividual. It is important to note of the presence of justice on both ends of the stick. Take for instance, the man who3aggressively strike his companion, and when the companion is questioned on what has happened, he replies, "I havebeen struck aggressively by my companion." Likewise should be the man who is justly punished by the sovereign. Forwhen the sovereign punishes this man, justly, he replies to those who ask what has happened, "I have indeed been justlypunished by the sovereign."Secondly, when a moral agent commits a wrongful action, he is either punished or is left unpunished. When thelatter occurs, justice has failed and the sovereign has not benefited the individual, insofar as punishments from thesovereign were erected to upload justice. The sovereign no longer benefits the individual, nor does he benefit societywhen his promise to uphold punishment is broken. The sovereign’s core responsibility along with his raison d’être isnot fulfilled, and therefore becomes of no pragmatic use to the individual. Therefore, it can be firmly asserted that whenan individual commits a wrongful action, he is only benefited when justice excels and he is punished by the sovereign.Lastly, using conditional logic and the premises asserted, a proposition can be formulated. An individual is onlybenefited when justice excels and he is punished by the sovereign, therefore, if an individual has been punished by thesovereign, he has been benefited by the sovereign. Therein the sovereign has fulfilled his obligation to the individual,and has bestowed upon him great benefit. The benefit brought about through this punishment should be seen as an endin of itself, rather than being contingent on other things. The benefits received from just punishment far outnumber theinjury or harm received by the individual in all circumstances.Although, many would object to this point, including philosophers such as Confucius, whom clearly encouragednepotism1. It can be argued that punishment causes suffering, therefore to lead loved ones to suffering is evil. However,digging beneath the surface quickly vanquishes this objection. Noting that the sovereign applies a just punishment to theindividual, and the individual equates punishment to suffering, it can be said that the individual has then suffered justly.Previously it was shown that through the means of legislation, justice aims to benefit the individual, therefore to sufferjustly is to suffer in aim of achieving greater benefit. This is similar to the wrestler, who suffers mentally and physicallyin aim of improving and ameliorating his skill. To suffer justly is then to suffer mentally and/or physically in aim ofimproving and benefiting oneself. Even if not initially apparent, suffering justly is to aim at some good, which in theAristotelian view is the motivation for all actions. Those who object to this do so from their own bubble of experience,without further considering potential predicaments. Likewise, is the traveller who lightens his load in aim of easing the1Confucius asserted that covering for family was a virtue. Relating to how a father and son must cover for one another, andtherefore stressing nepotism[1].4journey by freeing himself from his sustenance. More appropriately, he is like the child who avoids medical treatmentdue to his fear of surgery.Now equipped with the necessary knowledge to answer the core question at hand we can move forward. Wehave seen that through the means of justice, the sovereign benefits the individual and society. Additionally, avoidingpunishment after committing wrongful actions causes injury to oneself. An individual aims to maximize benefits andreduce injury for the ones he loves, such as family and friends. Therefore, one should ensure that their loved onesare met with their respective dosage of justice, even if it entails mental or physical punishment from the sovereign.Nepotism therefore cannot bring about benefit, but rather harm.Taking an Aristotelian view, all action is sought out in aim of achieving good and reducing evil. Individuals,therefore, seek to minimize harm and increase benefit. Additionally, an individual will seek to maximize benefit to bothfriends and family. This can be extended further using altruism, which is a moral principle that asserts the disposition tobring benefit to all others, not only family and friends. Therefore, acknowledging that avoiding just punishment bringsinjury, it becomes every individuals responsibility to not only make sure that their loved ones receive just punishment,but also that all members of society receive their respective quantity of just punishment. As an individual of the state itbecomes imperative to strive in the name of justice, not only in pursuing just punishment for family, but also for allfellow citizens.The complete argument can be situated as follows, to ensure clarity and intelligibility. Man is born doomed to aninitial chaotic state of nature, where moral authority lies at the level of the individual. He escapes from his naturalcondition with the introduction of a sovereign, who establishes and formulates an objective moral criteria. The sovereignhas therein erected justice to benefit the individual and society as a whole. The sovereign proceeds to punish those whotransgress moral boundaries and commit morally reprehensible actions. Therefore, the sovereign commits a just deedwhen he lawfully punishes the individual. As a result, the individual has had a just deed done to him by the sovereign.Acknowledging that it is through just and legal means that the sovereign saves the individual from his initial state ofnature, the sovereign has therein benefited the individual when he is punished. Lastly, if one cares for his friends andfamily and wishes the best for them, he must ensure that they are met with the appropriate just punishment for anymorally reprehensible actions.In retrospect, it has been shown that to truly benefit someone who has committed a morally reprehensible action,you must ensure that they are met with just punishment. Whether they are physically or mentally punished, it is a5mandatory responsibility to guarantee all citizens of the state are benefited by the presence of the sovereign. To not dosuch entails the failure on your behalf to seek the best for the ones you love and the ones that love you.References[1] Karyn Lai. An Introduction to Chinese Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, 2017.[2] Kant, I., Paton, H. J. Groundwork of the metaphysic of morals. New York: Harper & Row.[3] Suresha, R.J. The Uncommon Sense of the Immortal Mullah Nasruddin: Stories, Jests, and Donkey Tales of theBeloved Persian Folk Hero. Lethe Press.[4] Plato. Gorgias. Teubner, 1909.[5] Locke, J. The Second Treatise on Civil Government. Prometheus Books, 1986[6] Locke, J. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Scolar Press, 19706

An Inquiry Concerning Just Punishment

https://philpapers.org/archive/ALSAIC.pdf

An Inquiry Concerning Just Punishment

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

PhilPapers