Answer 4 of 5 questions.About 3 pages total -- REQUIRE READING FROM POWER POINT --
usf1414
Q2.pptxResponsibility and Punishment
Aristotle (384-322 BCE)
Aristotle was a Macedonian citizen, who studied with Plato for twenty years.
He went on to found his own school (the Lyceum) to rival Plato’s Academy.
Unlike Plato, he sees empirical observation as vital to the pursuit of true knowledge.
We have no published works by Aristotle, only his lecture notes on many different subjects: nature, the soul, politics, logic, etc.
As the power of Athens faded, the might of Macedonia under Alexander the Great grew.
Nicomachean Ethics
Illuminated Manuscript (1331)
The nature and goal of ethics
The first “book” or chapter of the Nicomachean Ethics (NE) identifies happiness as the chief human good.
Happiness is not a product of money, social esteem, or pleasure, though each of these must be present.
Instead, happiness is “a rational activity of the soul in accordance with virtue.”
So that means …?
Human Happiness
Like his teacher, Plato, Aristotle takes for granted the idea that the ultimate purpose of human life is the attainment of happiness.
Unlike Plato, he thinks that ethics is not about constructing a theory but about identifying what types of action create a happy state.
Aristotle sees good action as produced by human capacities, which are traditionally referred to as virtues.
Aristotle recognizes two types of virtue: those of character (endurance, generosity, etc) and those of intellect (“prudence” or “practical wisdom”).
Human Rationality
As with many other ancient Greek thinkers, Aristotle sees a rational power as essential to the human person.
Our word “reason” comes to use through Latin and later French, and is the translation for the Greek word “logos,” which has a very broad meaning (word, conversation, speech, proportion, organization, etc).
One thing is clear: logos is recognized by A. as a uniquely human power.
The word “soul” is a translation of the Greek term “anima,” which simply means the power of movement and change in any living being.
So, the human being possesses a unique “rational power of the soul.”
Virtue
The English word “virtue” similarly reaches us through Latin and French; and means “power” (from the Latin for man, vir, as in “virile”).
The Greek word for virtue is arete, which can also be translated as “excellence” and is not limited to moral attributes (e.g. a knife can have a “virtuous” – excellent for cutting – blade).
Aristotle argues that every human power has its function, and this function can be performed at different degrees of excellence.
This is fairly obvious when it comes to physical skills (e.g. sprinting), but A. insists it is no less the case for social and mental skills.
Book II: Pleasure and Measure
Happiness and Pleasure
Like Plato in Republic, Aristotle argues that the ability to control our drive for pleasure is the start of moral training.
Note that neither thinker considers all pleasures to be a danger to the pursuit of happiness; it is a question of the right pleasures.
The specific virtue of control with respect to pleasure is, in Greek, sophrusune; literally, “mindfulness” or self-restraint.
The fact that A. does not exclude all pleasures from the moral life means that his position is opposed to forms of asceticism.
The “golden mean”
The core idea introduced in Book Two is that moral virtue involves striving for moderation in all things.
Moderation, for Aristotle, differs depending on the person and her functions (e.g. running a marathon requires certain nutrition).
Aristotle says that each person has given tendencies, which make her miss the point of balance. We must work to correct this.
For example, let’s say someone is extremely squeamish about pain; then he must build up endurance as sometimes pain is unavoidable.
Book III: Choice and Compulsion
According to Aristotle I am responsible for what I do when the act is done: a) intentionally, b) with knowledge, and c) for its own sake.
Involuntary acts are due to: a) an external force, b) ignorance of consequences, and/or c) trying to avoid another evil.
There is a special class of actions called the “non-voluntary”: this is where someone knowingly choses a lesser evil.
Social recognition of moral responsibility gives rise to praise and blame. Blame becomes codified in law as punishment.
Prison Population Rates (2009)
James Rachels: Models of Punishment
The first model Rachels considers is RETRIBUTIVISM – “the idea that wrongdoers should be “paid back” for their wicked deeds” (EP, 510).
This follows the intuition that each person should be repaid according to her “just deserts” (Nozick’s idea of “historical” justice).
But Rachels points out that “just deserts” is distinct from other senses of meit according to: 1) need and 2) natural capacity (something you are born with).
“Moral deserts are deserts that one has … in virtue of one’s more general way of dealing with other people” (512L).
Retributivism is moral desert applied within criminal punishment: someone is liable to punishment based solely on particular voluntary actions
Alternatives: Prevention and Rehabilitation
Jeremy Bentham, a founder of Utilitarianism, saw punishment as a human ill only justified as prevention of further human suffering.
Closely allied to the prevention model, is the idea of punishment as rehabilitation (i.e. reeducating offenders to avoid repetition).
Whereas retributivism isolates the act as the thing which deserves punishment, the other models focus on the agent.
Rachels suggests three criteria against which to judge the three models: 1) Guilt, 2) Equal Treatment, 3) Proportionality, 4) Excuses.
Rachels claims that retributivism alone meets all criteria.
Doris: Punishment and Character
Basic contention: “the deeper rationale for determining criminal liability relies on character assessment [rather than on properties of actions].”
Doris argues that recent social psychology research questions this idea.
The character theory sees criminal acts through in terms of their expressing character traits (i.e. was it characteristic of the agent?).
It follows that acts “out of character” should not be punished, that is, they are classified as “excusable.”
The “moral character” evaluation of responsibility also allows much scope of excuse under duress, as then genuine “choice” is doubtful.
Rejecting Character Theory
Following Aristotle, character is typically seen as a collection of enduring personal tendencies of thinking, behavior, and emotion.
Repeated experiments in social psychology (e.g. Milgram, 1974), indicate that moral behavior is highly context dependent.
As well as moral behavior, psychological studies suggest that moral reasoning can change when is moral situation is subject to different descriptions.
How do we know what is characteristic for a person? The obedience experiments suggest that “normal” characters are easily overturned.
Doris’ conclusion: acting “out of character” is possible for all persons. It is therefore not a credible excuse to evade punishment.
Wright, Cullen, and Beaver: The US Penal System
As of 2004: around 7 million US citizens under some form of correctional control and 2 million incarcerated.
Causes of increased criminal punishment? 1) increases in crime in the 1980s and 90s; 2) rejection of rehabilitation; 3) popular “choice” idea.
Huge increases in federal and state spending has led to the current situation, where 10% of GDP is spent on the penal system.
This situation is in large part the result of focusing on “incapacitation” (taking offenders out of the general population), at the tune of $23 K a person a year.
After being “disproven” in the 1970s, the approach of rehabilitation was largely abandoned in the US, though it is somewhat on the rise now.
Punishment that works
Four factors for effective punishment: 1)swiftly following action; 2) predictable or certain; 3) seen as legitimate; 4) reasonably infrequent.
The size and slowness of the justice system, along with concentrations of crime behavior within the population, make 1)-4) hard to achieve in practice.
The authors cite social psychological factors that predict criminal behavior: 1) criminal parents; 2) heritability; 3) in utero neurotoxins; 4) childhood aggression; 5) antisocial behavior disorders.
As a consequence of 1)-5) offenders behavior and mental attitude will not likely be affected and so the deterrent rationale for punishment fail.
Conclusion: of all approaches to punishment rehabilitation is the most scientifically proven and provable, can transform attitudes, and demands accountability.
