I just learned a new term this week: Altruistic Punishment. I unintentionally
discovered it when I read a book review for "Trial by Fury" related to
the Amanda Knox case.
Experiments show that when some people punish others, the reward part of
their brain lights up like a Christmas tree. It turns out we humans avidly
engage in something anthropologists call “altruistic punishment.”
It roughly states that we, as human beings, seek to punish people who did not
directly hurt us, but who have gone against socially accepted norms, or are
perceived to have just done something WRONG. Altruistic punishment
refers to the desire to punish those deemed deserving of such and the
motivation for the punishment is that these people have committed a crime
against the social norms of the community, therefore the desire to punish them
is justified.
As I looked for more information, I realized that there is a wealth of
information related to altruistic punishment and the most telling for me and
for the purpose of this post is this quote from an article in the Science
section of the New York Times:
"...in the Jan. 10 issue of the journal Nature, Dr. Ernst Fehr of the
University of Zurich and Dr. Simon Gachter of the University of St. Gallen
in Switzerland
offer evidence that people will seek to punish a cheat even when the
punishment is costly to them and offers no material benefit -- the very
definition of altruism.
The researchers propose that the threat of such punishment may have been
crucial to the evolution of human civilization and all its concomitant
achievements."
To think of punishment as the flip side of compassion is quite new to
me.
Of course, punishing people for their “wrongness”, if you will, is the purpose
of law, but it this case, I'm talking about social punishment which has, it
seems to me, at least 3 components; seeking to punish based on a judgment
(based on a sense of right and wrong, good or bad), then a justification for
that judgment, and finally, the jive of making all of that fit together as if
we’re doing the right thing by actively seeking to punish someone.
We, as Christian people, are told in no uncertain terms and in a very direct
way, that it is not our job to judge others (there are many other verses, as
well, but these popped into my head first)
Luke 6:37
“Judge not, and you will not be judged;
condemn not, and you will not be condemned;
forgive, and you will be forgiven"
Matthew 7:5
You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye,
and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from
your brother's eye.
We quickly can ignore this, however, when we feel that someone has acted
against one, or more, of the Ten Commandments. Commonly experienced, however,
is that the chosen Commandment is usually one that reinforces social norms
rather than reflecting the bigger picture of the Biblical story of love.
For instance, alongside with “Thou Shalt Not Murder” is “Thou Shalt Not Lie”.
Other than Bill Clinton, how many people are dragged over the coals for an
untruth or white lie? What about “Honor Thy Father and Mother”. If your
parents wanted you to be a doctor and you’re a retail sales clerk, have you
dishonored them? Should you be punished for that?
The point I’m trying to make is that we selectively choose rights and wrongs
based on our cultural leanings, often ignoring one to choose another that is
more in line with our accepted “social norms”. In doing so, we can justify
these judgments indefinitely by creating a kind of hierarchy of “better
than/worse than” scenarios. For instance, to kill someone is worse than lying
to someone, or lying to someone to exploit resources from them is worse than
killing a convicted rapist. Stealing seems to have a bit of leeway, for
instance Jean Valjean in Les Miserables had to steal to feed his family, but
should we kill him for it? Isn’t there a bit of “give” when we think an act is
justified?
I’m beginning to believe that this is why we are instructed NOT to judge
others; the criteria is not consistent, the justifications are malleable and
the jive is, well, jive.
Not one of us is free from the desire to mete out punitive vengeance on another
person, especially one we deem to have done WRONG.
Not one of us is immune to the desire to punish others for their real or
perceived wrongdoings; even the most gentle soul may happily applaud a lengthy
prison sentence given to an animal abuser.
I've been mulling over this issue for quite some time and there are no quick
and easy answers. Many people who know me well know that I have a very tight
list of “rights” and “wrongs”. It is wrong to hit children, abuse another
person (verbally, emotionally or physically) ESPECIALLY spouses and children,
it is wrong to be lazy, it is wrong to not work to take care of your family,
it is wrong to waste money, it is wrong to take advantage of systems meant to
help, it is wrong to take advantage of our skin color, status, or educational
attainment to elevate ourselves above others…I could go on and on. I have lots
of beliefs about right and wrong BUT…
I’m learning.
I’m learning that those are rights and wrongs for ME and how I should act; I
cannot impose my beliefs on other people. It’s not my job. The only person’s
actions I can control are my own and it is not for me to seek punishment for
those who do things that I believe to be wrong. This of course also means that
it is not anybody else’s social job to judge and punish me for a deed, real or
perceived, based on cultural bias, open to interpretation or easily
justified with the same jive talking that makes it easy to judge the act in
the first place.