0756999
December 7, 2018
Prof. Barry
Final Paper
Hampton: Punishment Theory
The prison system was created to punish lawbreakers and to uphold criminals to the laws of society. Throughout United States history we’ve seen harsh punishments including torture, beatings and the death penalty. Hampton brings up the point of view that punishment is useful because of its potential to “morally educate”. Others may argue that punishment cannot morally educate people whose morals and beliefs are already formed.
The idea that Punishment is justified because of the potential to morally educate was officially labeled the “Moral Education Theory” by Jean Hampton and supported other philosophers including Plato and Hegel. The goal of Hampton's explanation for the theory was to eliminate the negative idea behind the word “punishment”. The point of the theory is to use punishment as a source of learning. Typically, when you are punished it is because you have done something “wrong”. Instead of punishing for reparations for your actions you would learn why your actions are wrong.
“Thus, according to the moral education theory, punishment is not intended as a way of conditioning a human being to do what society wants her to do (in the way that an animal is conditioned by an electrified fence to stay within a pasture); rather, the theory maintains that punishment is intended as a way of teaching the wrongdoer that the action she did (or wants to do) is forbidden because it is morally wrong and should not be done for that reason”
Instead of the usual punishment which involves paying for your action’s criminals can learn from them. The experience of being conscious of your actions can ultimately lead people to be more aware of others and the impact that they make in society. The Moral education theory is important because it shows that instead of being crucified for a mistake people are willing to push you to be morally and ethically conscious.
An example of Hampton’s theory is the animal who is prohibited from going on or near a fence. “The first thing one wants to convey is that the action is forbidden, prohibited, "fenced off”. Consider the kind of lesson an animal learns when it runs up against an electrified fence. It experiences pain and is conditioned, after a series of encounters with the fence, to stay away from it and thus remain in the pasture.” The experiment not only teaches the animal that going to the fence is the wrong thing but that the consequences of committing the action will result in the following consequences.
Hampton suggests that the fence is the moral boundary which teaches the lesson. She state’s “if you want to avoid pain, don't try to transgress the boundary marked by this fence." But, unlike the animal in the pasture, a human being will also be able to reflect on the reasons for that fence's being there, to theorize about why there is this barrier to his freedom. Punishments are like electrified fences. At the very least they teach a person, via pain, that there is a "barrier" to the action she wants to do, and so, at the very least, they aim to deter it”. The use of pain can teach the criminal that doing an action that is nonconductive to society will lead them to pain and to avoid that pain all together they should refrain from doing those actions.
While Hampton believes the theory is effective, she also addresses’ the fact that all criminals will not be affected the teachings. She believes that the opportunity to learn from your actions is what makes it beneficial. She also believes that any theory about punishment can be “complicated” because, in order to implement the theory, someone would have to take a stance on “on many difficult ethical and legal issues.” Given the fact that there are many loopholes in the law and different views on what is ethical in order to make the theory work and be fair these problems would have to be set in stone.
Hampton’s view on punishment provides strong points however it can be argued that punishment does not morally educate criminals. Instead, the use of punishment is more likely to invoke fear into people instead of educating them on the effects of their actions.
Punishment by definition is, “rough treatment or handling inflicted on or suffered by a person or thing”. Hampton’s idea of punishment as a way of teaching “right” vs “wrong” is ineffective.
One reason is that morality is not “black and white”. One may feel as though something like murder for murder is right and others may think it is not morally right. Hampton states, “I will contend (consistent with a positivist account of law) that the subject matter ought to be (although it might not always be) drawn either from ethical imperatives, of the form "don't steal," or "don't murder…The state makes these two kinds of commands not only to define a minimal set of duties which a human being in that community must follow in his or her dealings with others but also to designate actions which, when followed by all members of the society, will solve various problems of conflict and coordination.” In cases like these other factors are brought into consideration such as one’s experience, and background. To deem punishment as a teaching of moral responsibility everyone would have to have the same opinion on what it means to be moral and what laws provide justice appropriately.
“Moreover, I believe we must accept the deterrence theorist's contention that the justification of punishment is connected with the fact that it is a necessary tool for preventing future crime and promoting the public's well-being". The idea that punishment will prevent future crime and promote the “public’s well-being” is where Hampton’s argument falls short. Accepting this idea would mean that the education for the people is not reflective of the person being taught but they will learn that for the sake of others their action is wrong. This proves that punishment does not morally educate for the sake of individual but for the greater good of society.
If the theory states that punishment has the potential to “morally educate” then why do, we use punishment. If we are teaching people, why their action is wrong then the use of punishment is not needed. For example, if a child throws their food on the floor and you punish them by hitting and telling them not to do that. The reason is that they avoid doing it is because they are afraid to get hit, not because they know it is wrong. Even today most people do not commit crimes because it is morally wrong but because the idea of punishment scares them.
For someone who is taught all their lives that stealing is okay if you are stealing for a meaningful purpose such as you must feed your children the idea of morality is compromised. If it is immoral to steal, then the fact that your reasoning is enough your action is still immoral. But how do we use punishment to teach morality for an action like this, it simply does not work. At a certain point, people are molded into their beliefs so much that you cannot change how they think and operate.
To arrive at the point where you want to do the right thing punishment will guide you but not fully solve the problem. It takes more than pain to correct punishment. For most people, it takes something to happen to you for you to understand the effect of your action. An example would be a serial killer who has no remorse for others, and ruthlessly kills but, he would never hurt his family. If you were to inflict pain on him the “Moral education theory” would not work because the killer does not care about making decisions that will benefit society. Now if one of his loved ones were to be murdered that would teach him how his actions have affected others. More often than not, you must experience the type of thing you put someone else through to understand why you were wrong.
In conclusion, Hampton’s view that punishment has the potential to morally educate is not proven to be true and does not always work. The potential benefits of her claim would deeply benefit society and should, in fact, be implemented in society. As of now, we have not even seen simple punishment reform the minds of some criminals, let alone the moral education theory. With time and development, we may see the theory become effective and used in our everyday lives punishing children and in our judicial system with criminals.
Citations
Hampton, Jean. The Moral Education Theory of Punishment. Pgs.: 208-238.Web
Prof. Barry. The Moral Education Theory of Punishment. Power Point Presentation