There are lots of motivations for punishment. Wikipedia lists some. [I don't quite agree with how they divide them, but anyway...]

People should aim to love everyone, and so shouldn’t punish people with a motivation to harm them.

Yes. That’s it.

The primary motive behind preventative punishment is to try and decrease the chances of the crime happening again, either in the individual, or in others. This has a few subcategories; Incapacitation, where a person is punished by removal of certain rights which makes them unable to commit further wrong, Rehabilitation, where the punishment is designed to make the individual a better person, and less likely to commit further wrong, and lastly, Deterrance, where a punishment serves to deter the individual and others from committing future future wrong.

Restorative punishment is a punishment when it is possible for the wrong-doer to repay (in some way) for whatever wrong they committed. For example, if someone steals my cow, they can be punished by being required to give me a cow of equal value.

Restorative punishment is good, but has limitations. All stealing is not caught, so if we only penalize the robber to the value of what they stole it makes economic sense to steal as often as possible, and pay back whenever you’re caught, but still benefit from the times you’re not caught. For this reason people are made to pay more than what they stole, which is really a deterrence. The other issue is that not all wrong can be paid back - if the robber who stole my cow has already eaten my cow, and is now left with nothing, what can he do to recompense me?

This is where retributive punishment rears it’s ugly head. This is when the offender is punished in such a way that doesn’t restore the damage they did to the victim (e.g. a if someone is murdered, then nothing, not even taking the murderer’s life, can bring the loved ones back.), and in theory doesn’t prevent more offending. This is not deterrence, because the motivation is not to prevent offending, but for the victim to be satisfied. In practice it’s hard to differentiate between the two, because a retributive punishment is going to have some deterrence.

Some think there is a need for retributive punishment. Victim’s rights have been infringed, so they have the right to retribution. Personally, I’m unsure whether retribution is an innate right, but for better or worse it seems to be a right that people respect. But even though we may have this right, I think it’s better not to exercise this right.

The old testament law prescribed a form of retribution, ‘an eye for an eye’, but Jesus taught something different; “…love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you…”. And there are good reasons for this. Retribution can often start off appearing as just, but it is very close to turning into something much worse. In fact the ‘noble’ motive of wanting retribution can serve serve to cover up a hateful desire for destruction, and allow it to fester and grow, unchallenged.

Two wrongs do not make a right (even when one of the wrongs is sanctioned by the victims rights). Instead, two wrongs creates a relationship of hate, where both parties seek to harm, or even destroy the other. This is unhealthy, pathological, and leads to a cycle of hate and destruction, negatively affecting the victim and the perpetrator. Mahatma Gandhi once said “An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind”.

The alternative to this is universal love towards all. Not necessarily towards all actions, but towards all that are in the universe. A love that accepts the occasional need for preventative and restorative punishment, but that shies away from inflicting retribution, and instead wanting to forgive. A desire that all may ultimately be ‘blessed’, that all may grow and become great, and that together we may all live in peace and harmony. Yes, it sounds kinda hippish, but it’s ultimately something worth aiming for.

Do you have a favourite funny?

Obviously, there are exceptions; for example, parents probably have some degree of responsibility to teach younger children, and may sometimes find it necessary to disapprove of some behaviors (but never disapproving the child), and likewise other authorities may need to ‘disapprove’ of certain behaviors. As a general rule, when an individual is harming other individuals (without their consent), we should disapprove of this.

So life is complex, there are a lot of exceptions, so I want to avoid making a blanket rule. If I say ‘never disapprove, except in the following circumstances…’, you’ll be bound to find some exception that I haven’t mentioned. Instead, I’ll just say:

When we disagree, we should be quicker to be supportive, than disapproving.

So, that’s my main thesis. I’d like to link this with a post Christina wrote a while ago - unfortunately, no-one made a significant reply (online) to it, so I want to correct that. What I’ve writing now isn’t directly in response to it, but it touches on similar issues. Maybe this is part of how we can connect with people who we don’t see eye to eye with? When we disapprove of the other side of the fence, the other side can feel it. When we’re disapproved, we can feel it. If we can’t accept the people on the other side, we’ll never be able to have reasonable interactions with them. Simply, it’s far better to be accepting than have all the right arguments, you may lose and argument or so, but you won’t lose the relationship.

Thanks to everyone who has commented - though, after I’ve read all your answers, it makes it harder to write my own answers, because a lot of the points I was going to make have already been covered. So I guess that means we’re all pretty smart huh? (great minds and all). I’ve put together a bit of an answer. I don’t think it covers everything mentioned in the comments, but I might reply to anything I missed at a later date:

Obviously an atheist christian is going to fit well outside of the traditional christian box (and so would make for interesting conversations). So far that some would argue that they aren’t christian, and hence are unsaved. But this perspective isn’t really that useful in answering the question, because under it the non-christian theist is also going to be saved. So I’m going to come at it from a different angle.

Jesus came with a radical message of love and acceptance. He came to reconcile people, to each other, and to their maker. He argued the greatest commands were to love God, and to love man. So there are two aspects of being a christian; a relationship with natural, to other humans, and a relationship with the transcendent, to our father.

So an atheist christian will be able to follow half of these commands. Given that they are committed to following Jesus message, at the very least they will have a positive effect on the people around them, and the world in general.

On the other hand, we don’t know what the non-christian theist would be like. They are probably going to be quite nice, (and that’s the case for most people who I have met in that category). But, if they believed in a God who told them to do evil, then I would be very scared. Because if someone believes God tells them to do something, it’s hard to convince them to do otherwise.

I guess I have an aversion to theists (despite being one myself :P). When people start to get the idea that their ideas are endorsed by a higher power, there is a danger of slipping into arrogance, of betraying reason, of becoming inflexible and moralistic. The mantra “God said it, I believe it, that settles it”, kinda scares me. It would be ok if God actually did say it, but if he didn’t? The believer is wrong, and is probably not going to change the mind. So beware of the gods people construct. Be careful of those who give their reason away to a philosophy or ideology. Because that is dangerous.

So yeah. At the moment I guess I’d prefer a christian atheist. But I’d also be happy with a non-christian theist, provided they don’t have a scary God :).

Which is better, believing in God, but rejecting Christianity, or not believing in God, but attempting to follow Christianity?

Let me know what you think, I’ll post my own answer in a couple of days.

Note: The question is mostly aimed at Christian Theists, however, if you don’t fit into that category, and want to throw your two cents in, I’d still love to hear from you

I’ve come across some ideas that I think are important, so I’d like to blog about them. And I’d love to discuss them with you, because you’ve probably come across some important ideas too. So that’s my rationale for blogging. So that I can learn, and so that you can learn. Then we’ll hopefully grow, and be better people, and so we can go save the world. Hurrah!

It was messy in the sense that the technical side of the blog was messy - I’d made a lot of customizations, and hadn’t really tidied them up, I hadn’t updated to the latest versions of wordpress, the links were all out of date - it was a bit of a mish mash, and just not fun to blog with anymore.

More importantly, the content of the blog was messy. It lacked direction. It started off as a personal journal that was meant to enable me to talk about things with the world, and hopefully help me and others grow. Back then I had a higher level of self-disclosure than I would now, which I wouldn’t be comfortable with now. Ironically, as time went on, there was a bit of a reaction to the earlier self-disclosure, which meant my blogging was quite closed, which almost became a bit dishonest? Not that I was lying or misleading, but it felt like I was presenting a Nathan that was one-sided, and didn’t feel like me. My blog had lost it’s direction, and felt imbalanced.

For this blog, I’m looking for the middle ground. I don’t want to go exposing my innermost secrets to the world, but I do want to be honest, and take ownership of what I write. So, when you read this blog, you aren’t going to learn any dark secrets about me. But hopefully what you learn about me will be accurate.

I’m redoing everything from scratch, so bear with me as I sort things out. Thankfully wordpress is very easy to install and use, so it should all be relatively painless.

Hopefully I’ll resume (begin?) regular blogging soon.

Nathan