= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Quirinus_Quirrell comments on Punishing future crimes - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (63)
Easy. When they can predict you well enough and they think you can predict them well enough that if you would-counterfactually punish them for committing a crime in the future, it influences the probability that they will commit the crime by enough to outweigh the cost of administering the punishment times the probability that you will have to do so. Or when you want to punish them for an unrelated reason and need a pretext.
Not every philosophical question needs to be complicated.
I don't understand one part. How do you determine the probability that you will have to administer the punishment?
So you can avoid being punished by not predicting potential punishers well enough, or by deciding to do something regardless of punishments you're about to receive? I'm not sure that's good.
Can you say more about why you don't think it's good? I can think of several different reasons, some more valid than others, and the context up to this point doesn't quite constrain them.