Reward and punishment is a moral issue that has been explored since historical times
Running head: Pojman
Pojman
Name:
Institution:
Course:
Tutor:
Date:
Introduction
Reward and punishment is a moral issue that has been explored since historical times. Basically, it is agreed that persons engaging in wrong deeds that contravene the legal and moral expectations of the society need to be punished. In contrast, those that uphold virtuous behavior need to be rewarded positively. While the former approach seeks to shun societal vices that threaten peaceful co existence, the later upholds virtues that enhance societal harmony. The respective measures have various implications to the holistic welfare of the individuals. Nonetheless, it is worth acknowledging that the degree of punishment and or reward has raised various controversies since time immemorial. Philosophical writers have put forth a host of suggestions in a bit to accredit the degree of punishment and or reward that is accorded to the individuals. Pojman’s ethic prescribes that “the virtuous need to be rewarded and the vicious punished in proportion to their relative deserts”. I agree with this stance and consider it the most ideal approach of addressing punishment and reward.
Indeed, persons that exhibit virtuous behavior need to be rewarded and the vicious punished accordingly. The level of reward and punishment needs to be proportional to the effort that is put in upholding virtuous behavior and the degree of evil committed respectively. In his review, Waller (2008) asserts that individuals need to be treated in accordance to what they deserve and no individual whatsoever should be given either less or more of what is rightfully his or hers. Therefore, failing to recognize and reward positive behavior would be unfair to the person’s involved. Likewise, failing to punish the vicious is grossly unfair and is likely to have far reaching implications on the welfare of the affected individuals and the society at large.
Notably, these presumptions are in line with the provisions of the theory of retributive justice. This prescribes that the severity of punishment needs to reflect the gravity of the crime. This needs to be applied objectively, without putting in consideration the viewpoints of the individual. For instance, an individual who has committed murder needs to receive nothing less than death punishment. However, in order to achieve the best results and enhance sustainability of the ultimate impact, I propose that environmental factors and the intention of the vicious person also need to be put in consideration. For instance, a person who has committed cold blooded murder needs to be punished more severely than one that has committed murder in self defense.
Hurka (2001) indicates that reward and punishment are naturally intrinsic to human behavior and actions. Certainly, humans would naturally feel gratitude for persons with virtuous behavior and resentment for those pursuing wicked acts. In such instances, the virtuous are more likely to be rewarded positively and immensely and the vicious punished and cursed by the society.
Also worth appreciating is the concept of utilitarianism. Essentially, this postulates that an act is morally acceptable and considered to be good if it enhances the highest degree of happiness for the greatest percentage of the population. In light of reward and punishment, it should be appreciated that virtuous behavior seeks to enhance the highest degree of happiness for a great percentage of individuals. Conversely, vicious behavior enhances pain and suffering and in most instances, it makes it difficult for the society to experience any form of happiness. The best alternative to counter vicious acts would be to punish the respective individuals in line with the severity of their acts.
Arguably, Kristjan (2005) indicates that this would go a long way in shunning the practice and the entire society would refrain from engaging in such acts. In the long run, all individuals would coexist in harmony. Likewise, rewarding the virtuous according to their acts is instrumental in enhancing positive output. More often than not, individuals who are rewarded for doing good often tend to do more good. According to Hurk (2001), reward basically encourages the person to uphold the positive behavior. A society that lays emphasis on this attains the greatest degree of happiness in the long run.
Rewarding the virtuous and punishing the vicious in proportion to their deserts is also a sound way of promoting justice. From Aristotle’s point of view, treating equals equally and unequals unequally constitute the basic definition of justice. At this point, it can be ascertained that Pojman enhances justice as all persons are treated according to what they deserve. Just like reward that is apportioned to the level of excellence and achievement, punishment according to Pojman is not based on flimsy reasons such as vengeance; rather it is graduated according to the negative impacts of the crime that the individual committed. Ultimately, all individuals get what is rightfully theirs and incidences of injustice are kept at bay.
Recognition of positive attributes of an individual and rewarding the same also encourages positive output. In this regard, Waller (2008) cites that the society generally appreciates the fact that some individuals strive to perform better than the others in the society. Reward in this regard plays a critical role of enhancing positive response from the entire society. Punishment on the other hand not only shuns unacceptable behavior but also encourages individuals to assume virtuous behavior. Thus reward and punishment complement each other in ensuring that societal functioning is optimal. This is fundamental in enhancing societal productivity as capabilities and talents are effectively employed in attaining a desirable state of excellence. Philosophical evidence ascertains that a society that exercises reward and punishment as put forth by Pojman is most likely to survive and attain prosperity than it counterpart that does not reward the virtuous nor punish the vicious accordingly (Kristjan, 2005).
Seemingly, the concepts of nature and nurture are also worth appreciating in this argument. According to Hurka (2001) most individual attributes are determined by genetics and the environment within which an individual is brought up. In such cases, it is argued that vicious and virtuous behavior might be influenced by natural or environmental aspects that beyond an individual’s control. In light of the above, I believe that rational individuals need to utilize reason to critically evaluate the activities they engage in beforehand. Since all humans are rational beings, they can effectively align their behaviors to desirable societal values.
Conclusion
Reward and punishment are an inherent aspect of societal functioning. This is because they define morality and determine the overall functioning of the society. As it has come out form the receding argument, Pojman’s preposition regarding rewarding and punishing individual in proportion to their positive efforts and degree of evil is an ideal approach of enhancing justice. In addition, this promotes the greatest level of happiness for the greatest percentage of individuals. Moreover, it ensures optimal functioning of the society by enhancing societal productivity. It is a sustainable approach of ensuring societal survival and prosperity. Although humans are faced with challenges that stem from genetic and environmental factors, they need to use reason to overcome these and align their behaviors to societal values and virtues.
References
Hurka, T. (2001).The Common Structure of Virtue and Desert. Ethics, 112, pp. 6-32.
Kristjan, K. (2005). A Utilitarian Justification of Desert and Distributive Justice. Journal of Moral Philosophy, 2, pp. 147-70.
Waller, B. (2008). Consider Ethics: Theory, Readings and Contemporary Issues. 2nd Edition. New York: Pearson Longman
