> To be clear, I oppose family punishment. Why? Because I am a retributivist. That’s right, I think that inflicting suffering on vicious wrong-doers is morally praiseworthy even in the absence of any deterrent effect.
He is using family punishment as a strawman. If you say he is bad because he thinks it's morally praiseworthy to inflict suffering, he will argue that if you like deterrence so much then why don't you inflict suffering on families that should deter them even more lol
A strawman would be a weak version of his opponent's position. This is different. This is his pointing out a contradiction in (a nice strong version) his opponent's position.
That argument is about as strong as "oh you like retribution? That means you support <vile torture / mutilation>!"
Deliberately confounding "reasoning for choice of punishment" and "severity/extremeness of punishment" and "other moral guidelines outside the 'punishment-reason-axis' that inform the option-space of punishment" is obvious rhetorical trolling, who cares what the precise "fallacy-name" is for this sort of behavior.
Now that I think about it from the other end, I don't see how "hurting their family" is excluded from "retributive justice" solely by the definition of "retributive" either. It's been treated as a perfectly valid act of retribution in many cultures across history (and the present day, probably) - see every story about feuding clans killing each others members; they don't do that because they think it's going to dissuade the other clan from enacting their own vengeance in turn.
But it is a weak version of his opponents position, empowered by the fact his argument is pathetic: "unless you commit to maximal deterrence then you don't really believe in deterrence".
It's a slippery slope fallacy variant: "if you have laws to deter actions by individuals, then why not have laws which might create greater deterrence" - and then simply assumes all other considerations can be handwaved away.
If the argument: "the psychological harm of knowing there is famine is bad, therefore we should simply kill all people suffering from famine..." sounds ridiculous to you, then so should this person's argument because it's doing the exact same trick.
That's not withstanding the utterly absurd "opposite" he constructs his position as: "I believe in creating suffering as a morally noble goal" is not some sort of counter-argument, it's just him arguing for his own sociopathy in pretty-prose.
But he's right, it is morally praiseworthy to make wrongdoers suffer. Humans have known this for millenia, we know it deep in our bones. Murderers, rapists, thieves all deserve to suffer.
I’m not sure where I come down on the topic but I’m absolutely not convinced by “we know it deep in our bones” as reasoning. For millennia people have known the existence of God(s) deep in their bones, does that mean atheists are wrong?
Problem is that disgust can also be rationalized using that argument for bigotry and discrimination. Also, what does torturing a wrongdoer do for us? Hitler washes up on an island and you do the most heinous possible things you can imagine. What kind of person are you after that?
There is the argument that making bad people suffer ruins our morality. If we're better than them, then we don't want people to inflict suffering.
I heard/read this before, and I'm convinced by it: torturing someone does something not only to the victim, but to the torturer as well.
The act of torturing someone does something bad to you, regardless of whatever other effect. The kind of person who would torture someone in cold blood is not someone I want next to me.
He is using family punishment as a strawman. If you say he is bad because he thinks it's morally praiseworthy to inflict suffering, he will argue that if you like deterrence so much then why don't you inflict suffering on families that should deter them even more lol