The nature of punishment

Consider the following statement:

"If someone does something bad they ought to be punished."

Is this statement a hypothetical or categorical imperative?

For those who don't know the difference, a hypothetical imperative says that you ought to do something in order to acheive a specific goal, eg. if you want a cup of tea, you ought to boil the kettle. A Categorical imperative says that you ought to do something regardless of any aims, desires or consequences that are involved, eg. you ought to tell the truth - some may consider this to be a "good" thing to do regardless of the circumstances. A more popular categorical imperative may be "you ought to treat your children well" or "you ought not to kill people".

So consider the original statement, and tell me whether you think it is a hypothetical imperative, i.e. punishing someone who does something bad is necessary in order to achieve a contingent goal such as rehabilitation, revenge or deterrence, or it is a categorical imperative, i.e. people who do bad things should be punished because it is simply the right thing to do regardless of contingent circumstances or goals.

Maybe it's a bit of both. I was thinking the other day about someone stealing food. Is it wrong if they are hungry and should they be punished? Although if someone were hungry and stole food and managed to get thrown into prison over it, they'd be fed.

A bit of both? A statement can't be partially a categorical imperative. If you are arguing that it is a categorical imperative, I would like to know who you substantiate that view. Is it possible for an action be right in every situation? What sort of actions are categorical imperatives? Why is punishment a logical ensuant of infraction?

Why can't it be partially a catagorical imperative?

I don't see how a statement could partially be a categorical imperative. Either it is or it isn't; there's no in-between. If "you ought to punish infractors" is taken to be true in all circumstances, it is a categorical imperative. If it isn't true in every circumstance, it isn't a categorical imperative.

Well maybe there is just no such thing as a categorical imperative then. I think that "you ought to punish infractors" is an ambiguous statement that doesn't give me a lot to work with. I could say that all child rapists ought to be punished because I'm talking about something specific.

Okay. So why ought all child rapists to be punished?

The nature of punishment should be decided by each individual society and the citizens must not consider themselves exempt merely because they disagree. If one disagrees then one is free to leave.

For one society it may be justice for a person to be rehabilitated with cake and fruit. For another society it may be justice for a person to suffer for their wrongdoing and thus be discouraged from the action again in the future.

I see the benefits of both, so ultimately each society must decide what principles it will base the nature of punishment upon.

God's justice is "eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth"

Do I dare answer your question with another question? Why wouldn't you punish them?

I'll play devil's advocate for the sake of argument: Because it might be painful for them.

Then I'll play devil's advocate too. So what?

Buffalobill; "If someone does something bad they ought to be punished."

Is this statement a hypothetical or categorical imperative?


Hippie; I seem to be having the same trouble with this statement as Paradagim,, in that particular form there's something about it (the sentence) that adds a hypothetical element to what might otherwise be, and seems as though it wants to be, catagorical.
I think it's the "something bad", it sounds a little too subjective,, (to me). I probably woulda put it something like this 'People who commit moral crimes should be punished' but hey I could be wrong, until your post I'd never heard the terms categorical or hypothetical imparra, imperra, imperative.

hypothetical - to acheive a specific goal ie: stop them doing it again or to teach empathy/sympathy.

Parents have to do it all the time and the specific goal is to teach a child to do what is acceptable according to society.

I may be wrong but isnt hypothetical more for the good of the person who did wrong? Categorical would be more to satisfy others that something had been done, a reaction for the action?

Too many big words there for my small brain to understand.

woow, need to go lie down...

Let's see what Answers.com has to say about categorical/hypothetical imperative.

https://www.answers.com/topic/categorical-hypothetical-imperative