Philosophy Now Forum

The Saintly Sinner
Ethics and the Law can be relatively simple for a rule based society.
Such as an authoritarian society or state, in which the dictum ‘An eye for and eye....’ or simply do as your master dictates, is the basis of rule. Every crime would have its prescribed and clear punishment.
A society based on personal autonomy may also be rule based. About the only area of law and ethic being that of avoiding trespass and injury.
It is easy in a rule based system for people to justify themselves while wishing those they condemn to ‘burn in hell’.
The altruist and socially responsible society, however, does have almost intractable problems.
Not so much about people needing to forgive injury, at least for their own good as well as society, but in how the transgressor is dealt with by society and the law.
In essence perhaps, it revolves round reward and punishment.
Indeed, punishment may not be the appropriate term.
It revolves around the immediate and long term, for those involved and for society.
No doubt altruist society must have a reformist ethic, directed at individuals and society itself.
Society must be protected against those who are bent on damage to it, or cannot do otherwise.
But if a ‘normal’ person commits a heinous crime in his youth he may, as we have it today, be sent to prison for ‘life’. While capital punishment is irreversible, where this still exists.
On the other hand, a perfectly normal and even ‘saintly’ individual may commit a heinous crime in his later life. In that case he may be sent to prison for only the year or two that remains of his life.
In a third case an individual may live a life undermining society, while not breaking a distinct law.
If a man receives the George Cross for bravery and immediately afterwards is hanged for murder, it does point a conflict or difficulty.
In altruist society everyone must be held responsible, while never being treated as if they have ceased to be ‘human’.

someone who commits a crime in later life also has less to gain though, because they are older, they reap less benefit, both short-term and long-term (vs young criminals just starting off), so there is less incentive

so while it's unfair compared to young criminals who get sentenced for the same crime, same sentence, i think this injustice is somewhat righted or offset a least by the fact their is less gain in older age, and the public i think shares this perception, hence they aren't too outraged by seniors who commit crimes and then die two years later, but expect adults to serve/live the full sentence

it's like there are all these implicit elements to justice...where without them there would probably be more issues

that said, given the lack of incentive in older age, there are less such crimes (older people are less likely to commit crimes), so ti's also less of an issue in that respect, like technically it's an injustice but it's not socially significant due to it being relatively uncommon

RWStanding wrote: ↑Tue Feb 26, 2019 10:18 am In altruist society everyone must be held responsible, while never being treated as if they have ceased to be ‘human’.

Yes, I agree. Yet on the other hand, an altruistic society could manage without laws so long as, with a nod to Henry Quirk, everyone stayed out of everyone else’s business.

If a person, of any ilk, acts in a felonious manner, he is acting in a way that achieves his desired results. If the results are pleasing to the individual, how could an altruist interfere with the individual’s results without interfering with his happiness?

So, in an altruistic society, crime may not exist. In its place there could only be acts of pleasure. Society, in that case, would have no interest in police or prisons.

Saintly sinners? Perhaps so, but with qualifications.