The alternative on offer to retribution is not natural justice, but restorative justice.

I really hadn't anticipated that restorative justice would be such a foreign concept here. It seems neither you nor have heard of it.

How odd.

My arguments didn’t rely on scripture. I keep telling you this, to no avail. — Bob Ross

But that's not so. You do make use of scripture. I explained this, here:

Your post relies on god's having a son, and an ontology that includes sin and the dignity of god and damnation and so on. These are from scripture and revelation. So the arguments there are not examples of natural theology. — Banno

These ideas derive from scripture, not natural theology.

It's about synthesizing justice and mercy. — Bob Ross

You take it as granted that justice involves retribution. See the SEP article for some critique of that view, and consider if it is an ad hoc move. Your "synthesis" takes it as granted that God will seek to punish, not to restore and mitigate.

...they need rehabilitation which would normally be in the form of a punishment — Bob Ross

Rehabilitation is punishment? No wonder the jails are so full.

Are myths always this way? Or is Christianity a special case? — frank

I guess that myth-makers create their god-stories for the same reason parents tell their own children about the tooth fairy : to get compliance without argument. "If you do this, something good will happen, But if you don't . . . .". Gods bring the goodies, or not, depending on your obedience.

In the case of religious beliefs, professional priests exploit adults for their inborn trust in authorities*1, in order to get political compliance without rational arguments. Even adults, when they reach the age of reason, may begin to doubt the official stories. But when everyone they know seems to believe the myth, they may go along to get along.

Moreover, communal myths*2 tend to bond individuals into team players and tribal roles. Socrates was condemned for "impiety" : not playing along with the official local worldview. Philosophers tend to ask embarrassing questions of parents & authorities about fairies & gods. :smile:


*1. Born to Believe :
The idea that people are "born to believe what we're told" stems from our inherent trust in authority figures and the narratives presented to us, particularly during childhood. This tendency is shaped by our early socialization and the narratives we're exposed to, which can influence our perceptions of reality. While this inclination is natural, it's also important to develop critical thinking skills and question information, even when it comes from trusted sources.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=born+to+beleive+what+we%27re+told

*2. Communal bonding :
Myths serve as a foundational element of cultural identity, providing a shared narrative that shapes a community's understanding of itself, its history, and its place in the world. They establish social hierarchies, define roles, and offer explanations for the world's mysteries, fostering a sense of belonging and guiding individual and collective behavior.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=myth+core+of+cultural+identity

I guess that myth-makers create their god-stories for the same reason parents tell their own children about the tooth fairy : to get compliance without argument. "If you do this, something good will happen, But if you don't . . . .". Gods bring the goodies, or not, depending on your obedience. — Gnomon

True, and the sacrifice of Jesus has clear magical connotations: sacrifice this human, get good crops. So the sacrifice is celebrated at Easter, around the time of the spring equinox, which vaguely coincides with the last frost date in temperate zones. It's a fertility rite.

In the case of religious beliefs, professional priests exploit adults for their inborn trust in authorities*1, in order to get political compliance without rational arguments. Even adults, when they reach the age of reason, may begin to doubt the official stories. But when everyone they know seems to believe the myth, they may go along to get along. — Gnomon

For some reason, the belief in Hell is particularly potent. I'm not sure what psychology its tapping into, but the original Hel was a Norse goddess. She was just the ruler of the field of the dead. There was no torturing going on.

Moreover, communal myths*2 tend to bond individuals into team players and tribal roles. — Gnomon

And this is definitely true of Christianity even now. Christianity was a base for reformers like Martin Luther King Jr. As somebody mentioned earlier, maybe community solidarity can be more important than the details of the dogma.

A vague utopia? If you were god, THIS would be the world you come up with? How about a world where we don't have to kill other creatures to survive? A world without physical pain? A world without sickness? Etc. — RogueAI

I was asking you what you think the best possible totality of creation would be. I do think this is a part of the best possible totality of creation.

How about a world where we don't have to kill other creatures to survive?

Is that metaphysically possible without removing the possibility of the virtues, free will, and eudaimonia? I don’t know: it’s more complicated than you are making it out to be.

 A world without physical pain? A world without sickness? Etc.

You are blanketly asserting this is metaphysically possible to do and that they would be better; but I’m questioning that. For example, an organism that cannot feel pain is much more likely to damage themselves: is that good? Sickness is a consequence of having nature: you can’t have a natural world like our own and not have things that can make organism sick.

But they still robbed me and stole from me! Even if they pay the money back, I was violated! Should they not pay for that?

That’s true: you are right. To be just, the price would have to be greater than the amount stolen. Whether that be in the form of a physical punishment, paying back the debt plus interest, etc.

But suppose they were sorry for it and told me they spent the $20 on booze and they can't afford to pay me back because they need to feed their kids. Should they be punished for not paying me back, even if they're sorry? What is twenty bucks to me? I would still forgive them. Is that wrong?

All else being equal, it would be unjust for you to forgo retribution; but since the Son of God paid the price for our sins you can be merciful without being unjust.

Are you saying restorative justice does not have an element of retribution in it? I find that hard to believe.

Retributive justice focuses on punishing the perp, as seen hereabouts. Restorative justice focuses on fixing the problem.

Which focus should a loving and beneficent being choose?

What's the purpose here?

I was asking you what you think the best possible totality of creation would be. — Bob Ross

And you think that @RogueAI is suitably placed to answer that question? RogueAI, are you happy with that responsibility? And are you, Bob, in a position to assess RogueAI's response? You don't know if a world without carnivores is metaphysically possible without removing the possibility of the virtues, free will, and eudaemonia, so you say. Do you have a basis for saying it is impossible? That's what theology has to claim, if it is to explain how the world as it is is the will of a loving and omnipotent being.

Isn't "I don't know" a good response here, rather then taking on a convolute, ad hoc and unsatisfactory doctrine?

CC: @frank

But that's not so. You do make use of scripture. I explained this, here:
Your post relies on god's having a son, and an ontology that includes sin and the dignity of god and damnation and so on. These are from scripture and revelation. So the arguments there are not examples of natural theology.— Banno
These ideas derive from scripture, not natural theology.

I understand why you said that, because you are assuming I believe in the Son of God because of the Bible. I don’t.

I believe in God, in the classical theistic sense, because of arguments from natural theology—e.g., the argument from change, essences/existences, contingency/necessity, parts vs. wholes, etc. The Trinity follows, I think, from the nature of God as understood in classical theism (starting from the aforesaid arguments). This can be outlined briefly as follows:

1. God must have perfect knowledge of Himself because He is an intelligence and purely actual. If He lacked knowledge what is metaphysically possible or what is real (such as Himself), then He would have the potential to learn; but a purely actual being cannot have any potential.

2. God is absolutely simple, so His pure act of will and pure act of thought are identical. He creates by willing something as real and His will and thought are identical; so it follows that Him creating something (i.e., willing something as real) is identical to Him thinking of something as real. His perfect knowledge of Himself is Him thinking of Himself as real; which must, then, be identical to Him willing Himself as real. Him willing something as real necessarily creates something that is real; so Him knowing Himself generates something real out of Himself. His object of knowledge of this creation is Himself: He is both subject and object. However, He knows Himself as absolutely simple (because He has perfect knowledge of Himself); so Himself as the object of thought, in this case, cannot generate another ‘god’ that is completely separate from Himself. Instead, it generates a real subsistent relation between Himself (as knowledge of Himself) and Himself (as the one that is known). The Father is the one that is known; and the Son is the knowledge of Himself.

3. His knowledge of Himself, the Son, is not merely “abstract” knowledge like our knowledge of ourselves because He is absolutely simple: when He thinks of something as real, it becomes real necessarily. His self-knowledge is subsistent insofar as there is Himself as the object of His thought that is generated (as real) from His own self-contemplation and is a substance of a rational nature because God is, as the Father or the one thinking, a being that is a person and He is absolutely simple; so the Son collapses in nature into having the same nature.

4. The one known (i.e., the Father) knows Himself (i.e., the Son) as perfectly good because His essence and existence are identical and He has perfect knowledge of Himself. Since His willing and thinking are identical (because He is absolutely simple), it follows that Him thinking of Himself as perfectly good is the same as willing Himself as being perfectly good; and since love is to will the good of something for its own sake, it follows that God necessarily loves Himself in the most supreme and perfect sense (because the degree of love is proportionate to how much a person wills the good of something for its own sake and God must will Himself as the most and perfectly good). God’s willing is what creates though: so His willing of Himself as perfectly good, which is identical to Him willing Himself as perfectly good, generates perfect love as the object of His thought (or object of His willing). The generation of perfect love cannot be a kind of willing of the good for God that creates something different from Himself (because He is absolutely simple): it would have to be a real subsistent distinction in origin between Himself (as Love) and the Son and the Father because Love itself—God’s pure love of perfect goodness—is generated out of Himself (as the knower) and Himself (as the known). Likewise, Love shares the same rational nature as the Father because Love is a generation out of the Father about Himself and He is absolutely simple. Love is the Holy Spirit.

5. A person is a substance of a rational nature. The Son, Father, and Holy Spirit all have a rational nature and are subsistent; therefore, they are all three persons but they, given that God is absolutely simple, share one rational nature.

Disagree with my reasoning all you would like, but please do not straw man my position as that of revealed theology. Nothing about this is revealed theology.

You take it as granted that justice involves retribution. See the SEP article for some critique of that view, and consider if it is an ad hoc move. Your "synthesis" takes it as granted that God will seek to punish, not to restore and mitigate.

A part of restoration is a price being paid to the victim in some form proportionate to the crime. I agree with you: I think you are talking passed my points.

Rehabilitation is punishment? No wonder the jails are so full.

It can be: I don’t think our jails rehabilitate.

I didn't make the claim that a world without pain is better: @RogueAI did. That's on them to prove that. You can't shift the burden of proof on me for that. I have my reasons for believing this is the best possible totality of creation, which would include having pain in it.

More generically, this has to be the best of possible totalities of creation (or at least one of them) because God has to create, when creating, what is best; and what is best is ordering creation relative to Himself (as perfect goodness).

I am not sure what the terms in the literature refer to here: I am saying that God would focus on providing retribution and rehabilitation for sins. I don't think this really negates what you are saying, unless I am misunderstanding.

All else being equal, it would be unjust for you to forgo retribution — Bob Ross

Why?

I didn't make the claim that a world without pain is better: RogueAI did. That's on them to prove that. You can't shift the burden of proof on me for that. I have my reasons for believing this is the best possible totality of creation, which would include having pain in it. — Bob Ross

Some pain is useful, but what's the point of unending agony when you already know you're hurt and can do nothing about it? Why didn't God allow us to evolve so we could block pain? Wouldn't the world be better if we and other animals could do that?

I understand why you said that, because you are assuming I believe in the Son of God because of the Bible. I don’t. — Bob Ross

Well, no, since for several posts you have made it clear that your belief is somewhat different. I understand that.

That framing - "the argument from change, essences/existences, contingency/necessity, parts vs. wholes, etc." - is Thomism. So what you are saying is that you accept a framing that derives from revelation, while claiming that it does not depend on revelation... A long stretch.

That second paragraph, for example, in positing such things as an "absolute simple", supposing "pure act of will" makes sense, and so on, adopts a very particular view of how things are. It is very far from neutral, and has been used for centuries to defend christian revelation.

Seems to me that you are getting exactly what you set out to find, which no doubt is most satisfactory.

So while you might believe that your views derive from a neutral natural theology, it does not look that way to me. It looks like you have adopted a particular anachronistic account in order to achieve an already chosen outcome.

It looks like you have adopted a particular anachronistic account in order to achieve an already chosen outcome. — Banno

Yes. Like most theodicies, it's very ad hoc.

A part of restoration is a price being paid to the victim in some form proportionate to the crime. I agree with you: I think you are talking passed my points. — Bob Ross

You can see the advantages of restorative practices, to the extent that you now seek to subsume them into your retributive account of justice. I'll count that as progress.

But which is to be master? Is the purpose of justice to punish the wicked, or is it to restore the good?

And what possible place could there be for eternal damnation in a restorative practice?

I can't make sense of eof such a view. It appears morally culpable.

It looks like you have adopted a particular anachronistic account in order to achieve an already chosen outcome. — Banno

So, basically following a time-tested (or perhaps yet to be tested?) plan (or theory, if it has yet to be tested) and sticking to it. Basically, following the scientific method to a tee. What an odd phrasing when the two concepts are one and the same.

This is the one thing I find annoying about the word "anachronistic." If it were from the past, sure, because we know about it. So we can definitely say, "this is not consistent with our modern society." But if were from the future, it's just weird. Therefore, the word does itself an unforgivable injustice. At least as far as its everyday usage in conversation. It basically just means "This seems to belong somewhere else, somewhere I've never been nor ever experienced, nor that I can say I definitively know ever happened or even could happen, but because of information given to me that I myself never verified, allows me to draw a definitive conclusion." What I mean by that is, say you're a peasant farmer in a very poor country whose never seen a smartphone. To you, seeing one for the first time would be considered "anachronistic". But it's not. Essentially, it's 100% equatable with the word "unfamiliar" or "weird", all realistic possibilities considered. It just means "strange", really.

That's what we in the business call "weaksauce" as far as terminology and use of such in arguments.

If you asked someone what time it is and they poke a stick in the ground and make a rudimentary sundial, that wouldn't seem anachronistic to you?

So, basically following a time-tested (or perhaps yet to be tested?) plan (or theory, if it has yet to be tested) and sticking to it. Basically, following the scientific method to a tee. What an odd phrasing when the two concepts are one and the same. — Outlander

What?

You think science assumes its conclusions and then argues for them? What two concepts are the same - Thomism and science?

A weak sauce, indeed.

If you asked someone what time it is and they poke a stick in the ground and make a rudimentary sundial, that wouldn't seem anachronistic to you? — RogueAI

Of course. I'm not saying the concept doesn't exist simply that most people misuse the word and throw it around to the point it loses meaning and sincerity to those who witness such regularly. Like using the word "literally" as a synonym of "seriously."

What?

You think science assumes it's conclusions and then argues for them? — Banno

All I meant was, just because you're unfamiliar with something and attribute that something to "time now past" doesn't mean you know all there is to know. Nor does it mean those who regularly and primarily rely on things and behave in ways you would consider "anachronistic", just because they happen to be in the minority (AKA "doesn't fit in" in your particular society) doesn't mean they're wrong or any less advanced. Not automatically, at least. Look at today's youth. Stuck gazing on smartphones watching mindless entertainment. Sure, it's a smartphone, it's modern. But it doesn't mean they're any more advanced than someone 100 years ago reading a book. The majority would call people reading books on park benches "anachronistic" in full accuracy and use of the word. Therefore, the word has no purpose other than to use it for usage sake.

And yes, many times a theory (if not most all theories) purport or suggest something that isn't currently considered science. Pretty sure all theories do that, otherwise they wouldn't be theories and there wouldn't be any new information. So yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. You propose (or assume a conclusion) and test it. Most theories fail, that's correct. But those that do not, are what define scientific reality. Do you really not agree with that?

So @Bob Ross might be right? Trivially, of course. The methodological point stands.

You will have a hard time justifying Thomism on falsifications grounds, but if you think you can, go ahead. Using Popper to justify Aquinas would indeed be against time. But trivially, not invalid.

There's a hint of becasue the theory hasn't been shown to be wrong, it must be right somewhere here. I doubt, and hope, that Bob is not content with a demonstration that he might not be wrong. I hope he wants more than just that.

You can't pardon the person that victimized you and be just: that would be mercy at the expense of justice — Bob Ross

Your 'theory of jurisprudence', Bob, has nothing to do with the Christian metaphysics (magic) of "blood sacrifice" used vicariously to forgive ancestral "sin" – bronze Age sanguinary nonsense (re: e.g. "John 3:16" ... "1 Corinthians 15: 3, 4, 14, 17" ... The Nicene Creed). :mask:

There's a hint of becasue the theory hasn't been shown to be wrong, it must be right somewhere here. I doubt, and hope, that Bob is not content with a demonstration that he might not be wrong. I hope he wants more than just that. — Banno

Sure, that's a whole topic in and of itself. But. Remember.

"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work." - Thomas Edison

Do you really wish to dismiss such a sentiment as "not useful"? What if we all just gave up the first time, the second, even the 10,000th time. We'd be living in caves at the mercy of the elements. And come now. What have you done that comes even close to comparison to and of such a man. I'd wager not very much. And I could be wrong. But I don't think I am.

if I need to commit mass genocide to survive

There are two people doing that right now and anyone who hears about it gets really angry about it (as I did watching the news last night).

Rehabilitation is punishment? No wonder the jails are so full.

They’re full because it’s a good pyramid (ponzy) scheme.

I think your equation of Thomism with scientific method risible.

They’re full because it’s a good pyramid (ponzy) scheme. — Punshhh

It is, but I suspect that's more process rather than cause.

I think your equation of Thomism with scientific method risible. — Banno

To be fair, I had to Google at least two terms in this reply. The first, understandable, most "ism's" are simply repackaged from their original authors to fit or appeal to a certain populous.

Surely you can reduce each to a simple sentence anyone not intimately familiar with certain persons but concepts can respond to equally.

Not everyone equates mainstream Christianity or those purported to speak or have influence of such outside of the actual Biblical narrative as, well, legit. Surely it's not fair to dismiss someone who simply believes "it's either in the Bible or it ain't" as what is relevant and not relevant to the topic of the text itself (Christianity), now is it?

Sure, dude has an opinion. He's from a group of people that calls themself Christian and is a government recognized insinuation at the time that claims to represent Christianity. But hey. I have an opinion too. The difference between the two is, he's popular (which the Bible itself says to watch out for, directly in fact "The whole world will be deceived") and I'm not. That's the only difference between what I say and what (your interpretation of, if it's not muddied or flat out changed entirely) the person you're referencing says. Nothing more. So. Yeah.

Yeah, it's popular. That's why there's a Wikipedia article on the guy and his so-called "ism". I get it. But you're revealing a fundamental misunderstanding of Christianity itself, which suggests just because those who claim to represent God do so in a way most would consider "proper", doesn't mean they are.

The alternative on offer to retribution is not natural justice, but restorative justice. — Banno

Honestly, I don't know how much this changes things.
I already said in my post that 'punishment' is one goal of justice and not the only goal. In Christianity, furthermore, for the blessed it is assumed that there is an eternity of beatitude that will, among other things, heal them for the harms that eventual crimes did to them. Furthermore, I believe that Christians generally accept that the activity of justice should aim to protect the victims and to the repentance of the offenders, when this is possible. In fact, i also said that I think that in certain cases punishments (both in the form of an active punishment and of a passive 'let the transgressor experience the bad consequences of what he have done') can be educative.

It is undeniable however that even restorative justice involves punishment for the offenders. So, really, I am not sure what your point is. Also, I have my doubt that it actually works in some cases like, say, sexual offenses, murder and so on. In an extreme case, I am not sure how it works in the case of, say, genocide. But even in the case of, say, sexual abuse I am not sure that involving the victim or someone close to the victim is the 'right way' to go - the victim might be traumatized and to protect the victim perhaps the best way is to avoid to trigger the memories of the trauma. In the extreme case of genocide I am not sure how this model of justice would work.
In order, however, to avoid to be misinterpreted here, I think that, yes, restorative justice, in some cases, can be a better form of justice.

Let's however assume, for the sake of discussion, that restorative justice is the best possible model of justice and let's say that for the victims, their loved ones and so on are perfectly ok to adopt the restorative model. In any case, it clearly involves a punishment of the offender. But I have some questions here I wish you could give your opinion. What if the offender is unrepentant for the crime? What if the offender deosn't cooperate with the activities intended for the programme? What if there are cases where, in fact, the best way to induce repentance in the offender is a more 'traditional' way of justice?

Also, perhaps different model of justice are adequate in different cases. So, in certain cases, using a 'restorative' process is the best choice but in some other cases it might not the best way (either for the victim or the offender).