I have long held the view that good deeds are as relevant to justice as bad deeds, and that the failure to reward good deeds is if anything a worse injustice than the failure to punish bad deeds. I grant that this is a slight asymmetry in the opposite direction, but I don’t think this is a problem, because this kind of asymmetry discourages inaction, and I think inaction is a net negative.
But there is another way in which my conception of justice differs from your conception of symmetric justice, namely: I would never allow bad points and good points to cancel out. Bad deeds ought to be punished irrespective of good deeds, and good deeds ought to be rewarded irrespective of bad deeds. When you earn a reward, you should have the reward without fear of losing it as a punishment. When you’ve earned a punishment, you should accept the punishment and not try to desperately weasel out of it by frantically doing good deeds (this is a problem because it leads to associating good deeds with avoidance, desperation, and stress—makes it a frantic fight to escape punishment rather than a joyous thing). If you do a bad deed, but then do a good deed that more than makes up for it, that simply means you should receive a punishment and then receive a reward that more than makes up for the punishment. Bad deeds call for punishment and good deeds call for reward and that is that.
On another note, I am in favour of corporal punishment. It is barbaric to lock people away as a punishment for petty crimes. It should only be used where the criminal is actually too dangerous to roam free. Otherwise, corporal punishment is sufficient. This also has another advantage: where financial punishments make something illegal unless you’re very wealthy, and penitentiary punishments make something illegal unless you’re very nihilistic and don’t care about prison, corporal punishments make something illegal unless you are very desperate.
Also, in the case of a misdeed, once appropriate punishment has been dealt, there is no longer any injury to the institution of justice, and so the criminal has now effectively been cleansed of his criminality and can once again be thought of as a just, law-abiding citizen. The punishment closes the issue and permits him to have a clean conscience again. This is an important part of redemption.
I have long held the view that good deeds are as relevant to justice as bad deeds, and that the failure to reward good deeds is if anything a worse injustice than the failure to punish bad deeds. I grant that this is a slight asymmetry in the opposite direction, but I don’t think this is a problem, because this kind of asymmetry discourages inaction, and I think inaction is a net negative.
But there is another way in which my conception of justice differs from your conception of symmetric justice, namely: I would never allow bad points and good points to cancel out. Bad deeds ought to be punished irrespective of good deeds, and good deeds ought to be rewarded irrespective of bad deeds. When you earn a reward, you should have the reward without fear of losing it as a punishment. When you’ve earned a punishment, you should accept the punishment and not try to desperately weasel out of it by frantically doing good deeds (this is a problem because it leads to associating good deeds with avoidance, desperation, and stress—makes it a frantic fight to escape punishment rather than a joyous thing). If you do a bad deed, but then do a good deed that more than makes up for it, that simply means you should receive a punishment and then receive a reward that more than makes up for the punishment. Bad deeds call for punishment and good deeds call for reward and that is that.
On another note, I am in favour of corporal punishment. It is barbaric to lock people away as a punishment for petty crimes. It should only be used where the criminal is actually too dangerous to roam free. Otherwise, corporal punishment is sufficient. This also has another advantage: where financial punishments make something illegal unless you’re very wealthy, and penitentiary punishments make something illegal unless you’re very nihilistic and don’t care about prison, corporal punishments make something illegal unless you are very desperate.
Also, in the case of a misdeed, once appropriate punishment has been dealt, there is no longer any injury to the institution of justice, and so the criminal has now effectively been cleansed of his criminality and can once again be thought of as a just, law-abiding citizen. The punishment closes the issue and permits him to have a clean conscience again. This is an important part of redemption.