Some weird hypothetical scenarios and desert.

[Angra Mainyu]

a. Bert forgot about the kids and chose to go to Vegas instead. Does he deserve punishment?
b. Boltzmann Bert is psychologically and physically indistinguishable from Bert except for location, but lives on a distant Boltzmann planet in Boltzmann planetary system (which are like Boltzmann brains but stable, etc., let's say the universe is big enough for that to happen many times at least). When he chose to go to Vegas, the whole system was only 1 day old.
c. Boltzmann Jack the Ripper 2 lives on another such planet. He's psychologically, etc., like Jack the Ripper was one day after he killed his last victim (we assume he was still alive), but Jack the Ripper 2 already came into existence with that brain and the memories of committing those crimes, and the bodies were all already dead. His life continues on just as that of Jack the Ripper, so there are no further victims.

In the case of Boltzmann Bert and Bert, the comparison is between the two situations one day after they were told that the kids had been left alone, and at times in which their respective states are indistinguishable as specified above (e.g, we're not comparing Bert 1 day after the event and Boltzmann Bert 10 years after the respective event!). Similarly, we consider Jack the Ripper 2 one year after he came into existence, and a similar mental and physical state of Jack the ripper (assuming Jack the Ripper was alive a year after he killed his last victim).

Note: this is a poll only about what they deserve, not about what other people should, will and/or would do based on the info available to them, or about what the law says, or about other stuff.

So, what's your take on this?

 

[The AntiChris]

So, what's your take on this?

I don't think the idea that people 'deserve' punishment particularly useful.

Better would have been to ask if Bert should be held 'morally responsible' and if Bert and Boltzman Bert should be held 'equally morally responsible'.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

So, what's your take on this?

I don't think the idea that people 'deserve' punishment particularly useful.

Better would have been to ask if Bert should be held 'morally responsible' and if Bert and Boltzman Bert should be held 'equally morally responsible'.

What goals do you think the idea that people deserve punishment is not particularly useful for, and why do you think it's not useful for those goals?
In any case, even if the idea that people deserve punishment is not particularly useful for the goals you may have in mind (or some other goals), I was interested in finding out about people's views on whether they deserve punishment, which is useful for my goal of probing people's intuitions on the matter, in light of a number of recent discussions in philosophy blogs.
Or are you suggesting that the idea has some problem, regardless of goals?
That aside, the question of whether they should be held morally responsible is a bit ambiguous in my experience, given usage among philosophers. Do you mean whether they should be blamed?
In any event, that is a moral question in the passive voice, and suggests the question: "Held responsible by whom?"
For example, given the evidence available to them, the people who interact wit Boltzmann Bert and the people who interact with Boltzmann Jack the Ripper 2 should treat them the way their counterparts should treat Bert and Jack the Ripper respectively (they don't know they're Boltzmann people after all), so they should blame them (or held them morally responsible) to the same degree. But I'm interested in the questions comparing the amount of punishment they deserve.

 

[The AntiChris]

I don't think the idea that people 'deserve' punishment particularly useful.

Better would have been to ask if Bert should be held 'morally responsible' and if Bert and Boltzman Bert should be held 'equally morally responsible'.

What goals do you think the idea that people deserve punishment is not particularly useful for,

The goal of promoting a non-retributive approach to dealing with criminality. Of course this will be of no concern to you if you're in favour of/indifferent to a retributive approach to dealing with criminality. I just wanted to let you know, in case it hadn't occurred to you that your poll might deter non-retributivists from responding.

I was interested in finding out about people's views on whether they deserve punishment, which is useful for my goal of probing people's intuitions on the matter

That's fine. I was just concerned that you might not have realised that you could be excluding non-retributivists from your poll. Clearly my concerns were misplaced.

That aside, the question of whether they should be held morally responsible is a bit ambiguous in my experience,

I'm not sure why it should be any more ambiguous than the question of whether they deserve punishment. Although I'm not a retributivist, I can't imagine anyone taking the view that someone was not morally responsible but did deserve punishment.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The goal of promoting a non-retributive approach to dealing with criminality. Of course this will be of no concern to you if you're in favour of/indifferent to a retributive approach to dealing with criminality. I just wanted to let you know, in case it hadn't occurred to you that your poll might deter non-retributivists from responding.

Okay, thanks for the clarification.
So, let me clarify my view and goals as well, in case you or other readers have similar concerns:

a. I don't have the goal of promoting a non-retributive approach to dealing with criminality. In fact, while I'm not interested in promoting any approach in the context of this particular discussion, I'm generally in favor of a [mostly] retributive approach to dealing with criminality in real life.
Weird scenarios involving Boltzmann people and the like have features that make the matter more difficult for me, but when it comes to real life criminality, we needn't worry about them.
b. In this discussion, my interest is to ask about what they deserve, not about how others should deal with them.
c. I know some people reject desert talk and/or the view that people deserve blame, punishment, etc. I would expect them to probably reply "other", and/or to reply that neither Bert nor Boltzmann Bert deserves punishment, or not to reply at all. At least in my experience discussing the matter in philosophy blogs, most of those who are non-retributivists with regard to dealing with criminality also reject desert talk and/or the view that people deserve blame.

I'm not sure why it should be any more ambiguous than the question of whether they deserve punishment. Although I'm not a retributivist, I can't imagine anyone taking the view that someone was not morally responsible but did deserve punishment.

It's more ambiguous for a number of reasons, such as:
1. Your question was whether they should be held morally responsible. That is a passive voice moral question, which may be understood as "Should other people hold them morally responsible?" or as "Are they morally responsible?". Even if "A is morally responsible", "A deserves punishment" were equally unambiguous, the questions of whether they should be held morally responsible (or whether they should be punished) would be more ambiguous.
On that note, I can imagine people who (actually, I know people who) hold that Boltzmann Bert does not deserve punishment, is not blameworthy, and is not morally responsible, but that other people around him should punish him, should blame him, and should hold him morally responsible, given the evidence available to them (because they don't know they're Boltzmann people).
This is the second issue with the question you proposed that I mentioned in my immediately previous post.

2. Leaving that aside and assuming the question is whether they are morally responsible, the first issue I brought about was about the ambiguity of the expression "morally responsible" (see, for example, this discussion).
While I too think it's unlikely someone will say that they're not morally responsible but they deserve punishment, the problem is that different people might be understood the questions in quite different manner. For example, someone might understand the question of whether A is morally responsible as (roughly) equivalent to the question "Is A blameworthy?", or "Is A morally guilty?", whereas someone else might understand it as question like "Does A had the capacity to make a choice for which A would be morally guilty?", and so on.
In practice, I find the expression "morally responsible" okay as long as context clarifies it, but I don't think there is enough context here to clarify it (in fact, I think there is more than one usage of "morally responsible" compatible with the context).

3. Related to 2., there is the issue of whether moral responsibility comes in degrees. That may be a matter of disagreement, or a matter of people using the expression "moral responsibility" differently (see, for example, this discussion).
If it's the latter, that's an ambiguity problem. If it's the former, then it's not, but it's still problematic for my poll, since I was interested in a comparison between Boltzmann Bert and Bert, and a comparison between Boltzmann Jack the Ripper 2 and Jack the Ripper. But readers who use "moral responsibility" in a way such that it does not come in degrees - or who believe moral responsibility does not come in degrees, under some common usage of the expression "moral responsibility" - would probably be inclined (if they're inclined to post, that is) to object to a question like "Is Boltzmann Bert morally responsible, but less morally responsible than Bert?", or to a poll option corresponding to that question. But in this context, I'm particularly interesting in comparing them, and the expression "morally responsible" (due to ambiguity or some other feature) is problematic when it comes to comparisons (leaving aside the fact that what I really want to know is what people think about desert, not about moral responsibility, and just focusing on the latter).

 

[The AntiChris]

Okay, thanks for the clarification.
So, let me clarify my view and goals as well, in case you or other readers have similar concerns:

a. I don't have the goal of promoting a non-retributive approach to dealing with criminality. In fact, while I'm not interested in promoting any approach in the context of this particular discussion, I'm generally in favor of a [mostly] retributive approach to dealing with criminality in real life.
Weird scenarios involving Boltzmann people and the like have features that make the matter more difficult for me, but when it comes to real life criminality, we needn't worry about them.
b. In this discussion, my interest is to ask about what they deserve, not about how others should deal with them.
c. I know some people reject desert talk and/or the view that people deserve blame, punishment, etc. I would expect them to probably reply "other", and/or to reply that neither Bert nor Boltzmann Bert deserves punishment, or not to reply at all. At least in my experience discussing the matter in philosophy blogs, most of those who are non-retributivists with regard to dealing with criminality also reject desert talk and/or the view that people deserve blame.

I'm not sure why it should be any more ambiguous than the question of whether they deserve punishment. Although I'm not a retributivist, I can't imagine anyone taking the view that someone was not morally responsible but did deserve punishment.

It's more ambiguous for a number of reasons, such as:
1. Your question was whether they should be held morally responsible. That is a passive voice moral question, which may be understood as "Should other people hold them morally responsible?" or as "Are they morally responsible?". Even if "A is morally responsible", "A deserves punishment" were equally unambiguous, the questions of whether they should be held morally responsible (or whether they should be punished) would be more ambiguous.
On that note, I can imagine people who (actually, I know people who) hold that Boltzmann Bert does not deserve punishment, is not blameworthy, and is not morally responsible, but that other people around him should punish him, should blame him, and should hold him morally responsible, given the evidence available to them (because they don't know they're Boltzmann people).
This is the second issue with the question you proposed that I mentioned in my immediately previous post.

2. Leaving that aside and assuming the question is whether they are morally responsible, the first issue I brought about was about the ambiguity of the expression "morally responsible" (see, for example, this discussion).
While I too think it's unlikely someone will say that they're not morally responsible but they deserve punishment, the problem is that different people might be understood the questions in quite different manner. For example, someone might understand the question of whether A is morally responsible as (roughly) equivalent to the question "Is A blameworthy?", or "Is A morally guilty?", whereas someone else might understand it as question like "Does A had the capacity to make a choice for which A would be morally guilty?", and so on.
In practice, I find the expression "morally responsible" okay as long as context clarifies it, but I don't think there is enough context here to clarify it (in fact, I think there is more than one usage of "morally responsible" compatible with the context).

3. Related to 2., there is the issue of whether moral responsibility comes in degrees. That may be a matter of disagreement, or a matter of people using the expression "moral responsibility" differently (see, for example, this discussion).
If it's the latter, that's an ambiguity problem. If it's the former, then it's not, but it's still problematic for my poll, since I was interested in a comparison between Boltzmann Bert and Bert, and a comparison between Boltzmann Jack the Ripper 2 and Jack the Ripper. But readers who use "moral responsibility" in a way such that it does not come in degrees - or who believe moral responsibility does not come in degrees, under some common usage of the expression "moral responsibility" - would probably be inclined (if they're inclined to post, that is) to object to a question like "Is Boltzmann Bert morally responsible, but less morally responsible than Bert?", or to a poll option corresponding to that question. But in this context, I'm particularly interesting in comparing them, and the expression "morally responsible" (due to ambiguity or some other feature) is problematic when it comes to comparisons (leaving aside the fact that what I really want to know is what people think about desert, not about moral responsibility, and just focusing on the latter).

Ok.

 

[Unbeatable]

My take is that nobody in these scenarios deserves punishment, because nobody ever deserves punishment.

 

[fast]

a. Bert forgot about the kids and chose to go to Vegas instead. Does he deserve punishment?

Yes. The answer (the right answer) is yes.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

a. Bert forgot about the kids and chose to go to Vegas instead. Does he deserve punishment?

Yes. The answer (the right answer) is yes.

True.

By the way, most philosophers who aren't error theorists about (non-forward-looking) desert seem to agree as well; that case doesn't seem to cause much debate, leaving aside those who reject desert or only support some kind of forward-looking version of desert (not sure that's the best term for it, though)

 

[skepticalbip]

What's your take on desert?

Never go out into one without plenty of water.

But I am all in favor of dessert.

 

[fromderinside]

What's your take on desert?

Never go out into one without plenty of water.

But I am all in favor of dessert.

I recommend we consider putting a confection of saltwater on any wounds on deserters after dessert as example for those who choose dessert and deserting.