CSLewisDoodle | On Punishment: A Reply by C.S. Lewis Doodle (HT Part 2 of 2 - Utilitarianism debunked) @CSLewisDoodle | Uploaded June 2023 | Updated October 2024, 4 days ago.
This is the sequel to ‘The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment’ doodle, an essay where Lewis described the supposedly 'merciful' modern crime & punishment theory as a man-eating weed. C.S. Lewis replies to the 2 different criticisms of his essay: (a) that “usefulness”, not proportionality or conscience, should determine laws; & (b) that proportionality & conscience should take 2nd place behind “the protection of the community”. Lewis knocks them down delightfully, one shot to a pigeon.
(2:09) ‘Nomoi’ – by law or custom, ‘haplôs’ – simply, & ‘physei’ – by nature. For ancient usages see Aristotle's: Athenian Cons. Ch. 16 [10]; Ethics 1094b; & Politics 1254a.
(2:18) For more simple explanations of Natural/Moral Law, see Chapter 1 & 2 of ‘Mere Christianity’ doodled here: youtu.be/l_VYCqCexow (Convention vs Moral Law)
(2:28) During the 1700’s, highwaymen (ex-King Charles I supporters), pirates & thieves were glamourised by poets, in song, in the press & by fiction writers, which led to a contempt for the law & a serious crime wave. This then led to an over-correction by the State. In 18th Century England, deterrence soon became the be-all-and-end-all of 'modern' crime theory - thieves were now to be executed. Juries did not like this & would often reduce the value of the goods stolen to prevent capital punishment for this crime. By the early 1700's, the law soon allowed judges to commute the death sentence for theft to transportation to the criminal colonies in Australia.
(4:52) By choosing “happiness/survival of the community” at all costs, Prof. Smart is making a personal preference, & by asking others to do so also, he is establishing a petitio – an assumed moral standard of “happiness” or “survival” that all people should accept as correct. The inconveniences he declared solved are still there. All Prof. Smart has done is offer us a fanatically narrow/truncated moral code, instead of a healthy & full one.
(5:07) This saying is often taken to mean "the welfare of an individual yields to that of the community", which indeed happens in war (e.g. WW2), when the able-bodied are lawfully & temporarily drafted for the crisis. Nevertheless, 'the welfare of the people' law may not (& can not) be secured by acting outside of law.
(5:48) See Lewis' footnotes in his original article.
(7:23) 'Eye-for-an-eye' or ‘ox-for-an-ox’ in the Bible meant 'proportional restitution for victims'. If you look at every single biblical example, it did not ever mean rape-for-rape, evil-for-evil, punch-for-punch or even 1-for-1 (Rom. 12.18-21, Deut. 32.35). Depending on the crime & the motive, it sometimes meant cash-for-injury, execution-for-murder, 5-to-1, 4-to-1, 2-to-1, 1⅕-to-1. For instance, if you stole goods to resell, the victim compensation required was 4x the value of the goods stolen. If you stole to use the items it was 2x the value of the stolen goods, as the goods could be returned to the owner. If you falsely testified in court & were discovered, ‘eye-for-an-eye’ meant whatever sentence you intended the court to give your victim by your false testimony, it was given to you. See bit.ly/2wGrUKX
(8:06) Note that God’s definition of marriage & the State’s idea may differ remarkably. In ancient Israel, due to isolation, couples were married by their small village, & the marriage contracts were not written down until months later when an itinerant Levite or priest finally arrived. Children conceived during this period were not considered illegitimate. Unions & childbirth were not delayed for lack of a priest. In Nazi Germany, marriages that God ordained were forbidden by the State on the basis of evolutionary theories. In the Bible, divorce for legitimate grounds such as adultery, abuse or neglect could be almost instantaneous (Deut. 24:1, Exd. 21.10), but in many States there were very long waiting periods before remarriage was allowed, which made God-ordained remarriages unrecognised by the legal system. In these cases of inconvenience or delay, righteous couples often ignored the legal system, & swapped tokens & verbal vows until the State’s law did allow marriage, rather than wasting child-bearing years.
(9:02) The age of responsibility has varied certainly – in old codes it was around puberty - but there always seems to have been the distinction in British Law between adult & child. Note that as monarchs became stronger & took over the English law codes, the codes became more gruesome, & less based on financial compensation, & much less like the system of the Old Testament. In a big change from earlier English & biblical law, fines now were payable to the Crown or State, rather than the victim of the offence. The final change in English Law occurred in the 1800’s - prisons did not simply hold you until your trial & punishment, it became THE punishment itself. The emphasis now was cure by a kind of secular monasticism or extreme isolation.
(12:48) "Larn" = dialect form of learn ("school him").
This is the sequel to ‘The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment’ doodle, an essay where Lewis described the supposedly 'merciful' modern crime & punishment theory as a man-eating weed. C.S. Lewis replies to the 2 different criticisms of his essay: (a) that “usefulness”, not proportionality or conscience, should determine laws; & (b) that proportionality & conscience should take 2nd place behind “the protection of the community”. Lewis knocks them down delightfully, one shot to a pigeon.
(2:09) ‘Nomoi’ – by law or custom, ‘haplôs’ – simply, & ‘physei’ – by nature. For ancient usages see Aristotle's: Athenian Cons. Ch. 16 [10]; Ethics 1094b; & Politics 1254a.
(2:18) For more simple explanations of Natural/Moral Law, see Chapter 1 & 2 of ‘Mere Christianity’ doodled here: youtu.be/l_VYCqCexow (Convention vs Moral Law)
(2:28) During the 1700’s, highwaymen (ex-King Charles I supporters), pirates & thieves were glamourised by poets, in song, in the press & by fiction writers, which led to a contempt for the law & a serious crime wave. This then led to an over-correction by the State. In 18th Century England, deterrence soon became the be-all-and-end-all of 'modern' crime theory - thieves were now to be executed. Juries did not like this & would often reduce the value of the goods stolen to prevent capital punishment for this crime. By the early 1700's, the law soon allowed judges to commute the death sentence for theft to transportation to the criminal colonies in Australia.
(4:52) By choosing “happiness/survival of the community” at all costs, Prof. Smart is making a personal preference, & by asking others to do so also, he is establishing a petitio – an assumed moral standard of “happiness” or “survival” that all people should accept as correct. The inconveniences he declared solved are still there. All Prof. Smart has done is offer us a fanatically narrow/truncated moral code, instead of a healthy & full one.
(5:07) This saying is often taken to mean "the welfare of an individual yields to that of the community", which indeed happens in war (e.g. WW2), when the able-bodied are lawfully & temporarily drafted for the crisis. Nevertheless, 'the welfare of the people' law may not (& can not) be secured by acting outside of law.
(5:48) See Lewis' footnotes in his original article.
(7:23) 'Eye-for-an-eye' or ‘ox-for-an-ox’ in the Bible meant 'proportional restitution for victims'. If you look at every single biblical example, it did not ever mean rape-for-rape, evil-for-evil, punch-for-punch or even 1-for-1 (Rom. 12.18-21, Deut. 32.35). Depending on the crime & the motive, it sometimes meant cash-for-injury, execution-for-murder, 5-to-1, 4-to-1, 2-to-1, 1⅕-to-1. For instance, if you stole goods to resell, the victim compensation required was 4x the value of the goods stolen. If you stole to use the items it was 2x the value of the stolen goods, as the goods could be returned to the owner. If you falsely testified in court & were discovered, ‘eye-for-an-eye’ meant whatever sentence you intended the court to give your victim by your false testimony, it was given to you. See bit.ly/2wGrUKX
(8:06) Note that God’s definition of marriage & the State’s idea may differ remarkably. In ancient Israel, due to isolation, couples were married by their small village, & the marriage contracts were not written down until months later when an itinerant Levite or priest finally arrived. Children conceived during this period were not considered illegitimate. Unions & childbirth were not delayed for lack of a priest. In Nazi Germany, marriages that God ordained were forbidden by the State on the basis of evolutionary theories. In the Bible, divorce for legitimate grounds such as adultery, abuse or neglect could be almost instantaneous (Deut. 24:1, Exd. 21.10), but in many States there were very long waiting periods before remarriage was allowed, which made God-ordained remarriages unrecognised by the legal system. In these cases of inconvenience or delay, righteous couples often ignored the legal system, & swapped tokens & verbal vows until the State’s law did allow marriage, rather than wasting child-bearing years.
(9:02) The age of responsibility has varied certainly – in old codes it was around puberty - but there always seems to have been the distinction in British Law between adult & child. Note that as monarchs became stronger & took over the English law codes, the codes became more gruesome, & less based on financial compensation, & much less like the system of the Old Testament. In a big change from earlier English & biblical law, fines now were payable to the Crown or State, rather than the victim of the offence. The final change in English Law occurred in the 1800’s - prisons did not simply hold you until your trial & punishment, it became THE punishment itself. The emphasis now was cure by a kind of secular monasticism or extreme isolation.
(12:48) "Larn" = dialect form of learn ("school him").
