"Justice demands retribution as a way to restore the moral balance of the universe."
I don't know that that is a useful perspective. However, let us take it as a premise. What then is the "balance", and how is it to be "restored"? If harming someone has unbalanced the universe, then how does harming that person restore the balance?
There are many ways (short of killing a person) which may curtail the freedom of that person to threaten harm. When we look at the problem of Acts of God (as they are known), and the tragedy and suffering that floods, fires, earthquakes, disease, etc. inflict on life, we are tempted to assume that any "balance" to the universe (in the sense of the admixture of good and evil) would naturally necessitate a great deal of both good and evil. If you were speaking merely of the relations of humankind, I suppose that that would have been made clear.
Now, the universe is a big place. How is one to know how much or little of one act or the other act needs to be done in order to have "balance"?
It seems to me that merely assuming that the universe has a moral balance, is an awfully egregious presumption. And the idea that you or I could restore the balance likewise rather conceited, is it not? If the universe does have a "balance", then how is one to know that the criminals are not restoring that balance...or at the very least, contributing to it??
I certainly don't mean to depreciate the possibilities inherent in your speculation. It is just that the surety with which you offered such a fantastic statement was somewhat off-putting... |
