My sense is that would be the argument that Jordan Peterson was thinking about when he made the statement.

it's not a very original idea.

It’s not strictly hypothetical either. As harm can be defined and is as reported from experience. We can qualify such harm from events that contain a match of definition.

Many actually believe that they are on the "righteous" side working to prevent harm. In that case, it's like the husband who beats his wife "for her own good." On the other hand there are some who do not care about preventing harm. They work for alterior motives- usually money and power, sometimes revenge driven by misplaced anger.

Take the war on drugs for example. Most proponents are actually doing what they consider to be the right thing. They see some of the harmful effects of drug use and they want to prevent it. But by making it illegal they make it even more dangerous, not only for the user, but for society at large.

They create a vacuum for unethical businesses to operate. This feeds resources to the groups. These groups often do not care about the quality of their product or the proper dosing which leads to many deaths. Most of the violence associated with drugs comes from these groups. When a product is made illegal it drives up the price, not necessarily due to a constriction on supply, but because of a "risk tax". So addicts are often driven to steal to support their habit. It also works to send users into the shadows for fear of judgment and persecution. There they are less likely to use the drugs in a safe manner or get help if they devolpe an unhealthy addiction.

Some want drugs and other things/actions, which do not in and of themselves cause non-consentual harm, to remain illegal because they are profiting from the system. Prisons are big business. Suppliers to enforcement agencies are big business. Many jobs are built around the system. Then there are some who use the system as an avenue to express a toxic lust for power.

Really think about this. You can be driving along minding you own business not hurting anyone and if you happen to have a certain plant or substance in your procession you will be taken from your car and put into a cage against your will. If you resist their attempts to put you in a cage, they will do so forcibly. If you fight back they will attempt to beat you or maybe even kill you. Who is the bad guy in that situation?

Actions can be broken down into two distinct categories:
1. Consensual
2. Non-consensual

Using drugs is consensual. Robbing someone to pay for drugs is non-consensual. We should only police actions that are directly non-consentual. We should not police the consensual actions of individuals in a fumbling attempt to prevent non-consensual actions. This is an imposition of will and a major violation of freedom. This idea has been around forever and is outlined in the Non-Aggresion Principle.

So what about the non-consentual actions like assault and theft? Well, our justice system doesn't do a very good job of preventing that either. Obviously.

It's really revenge repackaged and sold as justice. The typical argument you hear from the purveyors of vengeance who've already made the concession that punitive justice doesnt do much to prevent crime is that the revenge system is a necessary evil to prevent wild vigilante justice. "If we didn't have punishments, then everyone would go around exacting revenge on their own and it would be a dangerous chaotic mess out there!"

Well that just doesnt appear to be true either. There are places where there is virtually no law enforcement and the people get along just fine on their own. It seems more like a cultural thing.

The current system encourages a culture of vengeance, violence and punishment. When you say it's ok for systems and institutions to carry out these acts you send out a bad message.

Work to actually solve the problem instead of just beating it with a club and making it worse off than before. We can view people who've committed harmful acts as if they are sick. Still separate them to avoid any further harm, but help them.

If instead of this punitive based system, we had something more compassionate and rehabilitative in place, then we might see a shift in this culture. Send out the message that we can rise above the violence and hate. Encourage a more loving and compassionate culture.

Citamgine's arguments against punitive justice provide a great description of people, their anxieties, intentions, hopes and desires. It's just not the people of this world.

A better line of argumentation for rehabilitative justice may be to argue for it; rather than arguing in opposition to punitive justice. It shouldn't be framed as an either/or situation. Punitive justice presently reflects people's desires and their views of justice. A change in people's views on justice may help make a change in their desires but implying that punitive justice is not in their desires won't get far.

I did not intend to imply that people do not desire punishment as a form of justice. Many do.

I believe that in order to overcome the inertia of established systems it is important to point out the problems therein. It's also important to point out the influence that these systems, which are held as authority, impart on social dynamics- in this case the notion that revenge is justice. It can be helpful to understand the orgins of harmful ideals which lead to the eventual formation of harmful systems.

I agree with you somewhat. I don't think the sole focus should be on the problems with punitive justice. I think it's also necessary to showcase the benefits of rehabilitation.

It's just difficult to argue in favor of any social position without a basis for comparison. In math we can both arrive at the same solution through different modes of procedure. In a macro view of life that is not always the case because the procedure is sometimes a part of the solution. This reminds me of the AI who's instructed to make paper clips and then goes on to destroy everything to make material for more paper clips.

The ends do not justify the means. Weighing the cost/benefit relationship of punitive justice should have been a thought experiment, not something carried out in real life.

Rehabilitation is an effective and humane means for correcting harmful behavior. Its morally consistant. It sets a good example for the culture. Rehabilitative systems are already in use and have empirical evidence to back their effectiveness. Norway is a good example of the right direction.