1.5.10.6 Traditional Concepts

Version 1.0 October 2022                             (Previous Version)

In this section we discuss some of the terminology that is often associated with Responsibility.  We explain what these words mean in the context of REALigion, a Reasonable Global Way.

Justice, in our approach, has the goal of promoting a society that is as fair as possible to all, balanced between the needs of victims and offenders, minimizing overall suffering and harm, while ensuring offenders suffer the consequences of their actions, all to promote a safe and secure society.

Retributive Justice is applying punishment rather than rehabilitation, where the punishment is supposedly proportionate to the harm caused by the offence (an eye for an eye).  Although it is commonly thought that this approach reduces crime it is much less effective than most people suppose.  In many cases the punishment is more severe than the harm caused. 

We do not believe this is justice.  It contravenes our values of Love (to minimize harm and promote well-being) and Equality (to take into account everyone’s suffering).  It is also ineffective: it didn’t reduce poverty or crime.

Restorative Justice is appropriate in many cases of petty theft, as well as minor(?) violence, bullying and harassment.  This requires firstly that the offender admit their conduct caused harm (ie “owns� the offence) and has some empathy for the victim and secondly that the victim is willing to participate in the process and is supported when doing so.  Offenders who lack empathy or a sense of responsibility should be ineligible.  Victims who will suffer during the process, by reliving the offending or too confronted by facing the offender should not be encouraged to be involved.  The process may be most effective in small communities (perhaps a village, school or workplace) where offender and victim would normally be expected to continue to come across each other in the community.  The goal is to repair the harm caused by the offence, to enable the offender to see the harm caused (some of which probably wasn’t intended), and for the victim to understand how the offence came about and hopefully reduce the fear of repeat offences.  The most widely used component of restoration is restitution, because the most obvious way to hold offenders responsible for the injuries they cause is for them to make restitution to the victims – which may be possible for property damage but not for physical injuries or psychological hurt.  The outcome must include a process to prevent (or at least reduce the risk of) re-offending.  Unrelated parties in the community should feel safer and more accepting of an offender who is seen to be doing their best to reform and make restitution.

Forgiveness, in this approach, cannot be absolving offenders of blame, because we are de-emphasizing blame.  Nor should be to alleviate any of the legitimate legal or social consequences of the offending, because this is already designed to minimize unnecessary or ineffective harm.  These consequences are also designed to reduce the risk of future offending (by this offender or other potential offenders), and forgiveness should not entail an increase (ie lack of decrease) in the risk of future harm or suffering.  We must let Justice take its course, ensuring the best outcome for everyone while offenders suffer appropriate consequences.  Forgiveness has internal consequences for the forgiver, without changing the consequences for the offender: it is saying that the desire for vengeance, for retribution, to wish unnecessary suffering on the offender, has passed, or been abandoned as inappropriate.  This is a healthy response that will facilitate any healing required as a result of the offending, because an ongoing desire for revenge breeds anger and bitterness, in a vicious cycle contrary to the person’s well- being.  It allows us to encourage forgiveness without increasing the danger to the rest of society.

As noted above, we use the word offender here even though for some this word itself may be offensive.  Offender suggests guilt, with moralistic overtones, whereas we are minimizing the notions of blame and moral failings.  But for want of a better word we continue to use offender, essentially meaning the person who the proposed intervention is intended to target. 

Similarly we sometimes use the word victim, to mean the person adversely affected by the offender.  Some people now prefer the term survivor, as one who has actively lived through an offence, rather than a victim, defined by the harm that has come to them, with a loss of agency, implying powerless.

We target people doing wrong, in one of two senses: wrong as in factually incorrect and wrong as in morally wrong. 

●   Being factually incorrect is related to contravening our pragmatic or practical core values of Truth, Diversity and Reality.  Some people deny there is a truth to be found.  Some assert their version of the truth so emphatically as to be intolerant of disagreement, and that is unjustifiable and hence wrong.  Many people seem to be detached from reality, believing things without justification or even contrary to our understanding of our shared public reality.

●   Being morally wrong in related to contravening our core ethical values of Life, Love, Equality and Responsibility.  In general, killing people, hurting and harming them, discounting, disparaging and disrespecting people, and showing no self-discipline to stop such behaviour is morally wrong.

●   Being factually incorrect is an error; intentionally or knowingly acting morally wrong is a crime; thoughtlessly behaving morally incorrectly, negligence, is a minor wrongdoing, perhaps (outside the USA) a misdemeanor; all are unskillful.

Punishment is generally used to mean the negative consequences of a crime inflicted by the relevant authorities.  To the extent that the punishment fits the crime, is not disproportionate, and is actually effective in reducing crime the punishment is fair or just (see definition of Justice above).  To the extent the punishment contravenes those parameters it is harsh, unjust, and perhaps criminal in itself.

Owning responsibility for your action is acknowledging that your action was an error, a misdemeanor or crime; that some intervention was required, perhaps on your own initiative, but did not occur; that you should suffer the appropriate consequences; and that you should take steps to redress the wrongs.

Obligation, in this context meaning specifically a moral obligation, means that if we are to be consistent with our core values then we must choose to act in a certain way.  If we have an obligation to help those in need when we can, this means that our core values, especially our ethical values, imply that we should do that, and if we claim those values we must do that, otherwise we are hypocritical, exposing us to ridicule or condemnation by others and a sense of shame, guilt or disappointment.

Evil is a very loaded term, traditionally referring to the very worst people and deeds.  There is unfortunate, bad, egregious and evil.  Evil is morally reprehensible, the worst of the worst.

Some people envisage that the world, or its people are in a cosmic war between good and evil.  Specific individuals are said to be evil.  In REALigion we view most of this as unhelpful.  We can, and do, use evil to mean inexplicably and unforgivably causing a lot of suffering.  Evil applies to actions, not people.