Should people be judged for their past actions? (Venue: Caffè Nero)

(Scroll down for topic intro)

THE VENUE: Caffè Nero

Update: the weather this morning is warm and dry, so we'll meet by the river. The location below has been updated and the attendee limit removed.

Sunday's weather looks promising but things can change. So we default to our indoor locations and will take a decision on Sunday morning. Please check before you leave home. If we do meet by the river, the venue (below) will be updated and the attendee limit removed.

When we meet indoors, we run the same event in two locations: Caffè Nero and Starbucks, so as to provide capacity for as many people who would like to attend, without overwhelming any one venue. Thus, there will be two events published, and you can choose which one to attend. Please don't sign up for both. This event is for the Nero location.

We meet upstairs at Caffè Nero. An organiser will be present from 10.45. We are not charged for use of the space so it would be good if everyone bought at least one drink.

An attendee limit has been set so as not to overwhelm the venue.

Etiquette
Our discussions are friendly and open. We are a discussion group, not a for-and-against debating society. But it helps if we try to stay on topic. And we should not talk over others, interrupt them, or try to dominate the conversation.

There is often a waiting list for places, so please cancel your attendance as soon as possible if you subsequently find you can't come.

WhatsApp groups
We have two WhatsApp groups. One is to notify events, including extra events such as meeting for a meal or a drink during the week which we don't normally put on the Meetup site. The other is for open discussion of whatever topics occur to people. If you would like to join either or both groups, please send a note of the phone number you would like to use to Richard Baron on: website.audible238@passmail.net. (This is an alias that can be discarded if it attracts spam, hence the odd words.)

THE TOPIC: Should people be judged for their past actions?

This week's topic has been prepared by Richard.

Sometimes we meet someone again after many years and say that he or she is a different person. People can change radically. John Locke drew attention to this back in 1690, when writing about what underwrites identity over time. He distinguished between same human being (he wrote "same man", but we shall update him) - the biological entity - and same person - the psychological entity. Even now, philosophers debating personal identity take Locke as a starting point before devising difficult test cases.

We shall not try to settle on a test of personal identity in general. Instead, we shall ask what underwrites current responsibility for past actions. When, if ever, is it appropriate to judge people for what they did when they were significantly different from how they are now?

Most of the time we do not have to judge people at all. But if they could be prosecuted for long-past crimes, or could receive honours for their achievements some time ago, judgement is hard to avoid.

Arguments in favour of judging people for past actions when they were very different

Punishment can still fulfil the functions of deterring other criminals and expressing our social disapproval. Likewise, honours can still fulfil the functions of encouraging other people and expressing our approval.

It is essential to our concept of a person that he or she has a life history. It is part of that person's current identity, as someone who has done certain things and had certain experiences. It would be disrespectful to say that people's histories did not matter. If we did not punish long-past crimes, that would amount to discounting the histories of the victims. Likewise, it would be disrespectful to someone who might be honoured to ignore his or her own history as the person who had done the relevant splendid things. So we need to recognise people's histories when appraising them, even histories that while they may explain current personalities, are not visible in current character traits.

Sometimes we have to wait a while before passing judgement. A crime may only come to light years later. And Nobel Prizes are often awarded only after a long interval because it can take a while to establish that the work done is both correct and significant.

Arguments against

Punishment won't deter the criminal or protect society because the radically changed criminal is no longer motivated to do it again. Likewise, honours won't encourage the radically changed person honoured to repeat the relevant fine conduct.

The evidence on which to base judgements will get unclear with time. This is one argument for statutes of limitations.

The past should not have to be a permanent drag on life like a ball and chain. This is one argument for a spent convictions rule that old convictions do not need to be disclosed to employers.

We can acknowledge that someone has a life history but say that it is the future that matters. Only the future can be affected by our judgements, so it is rational to focus on current character in deciding how to treat someone.

Do come along on Sunday. We promise not to judge you for what you have said in previous weeks.