Ramblings

This is an old revision of the document!

Depending on your specific definition, Redemption denotes the idea of clearing oneself of wrongdoing or the guilt of wrongdoing. “Salvagability” and “redeemability”, ie. “redemption”, are not philosophical terms, they're theistic and rely on theistic principles. Bad deeds don't just vanish from the earth or get neutralized. There is no ledger that keeps track of good and bad deeds. When we do something bad, all we can do is regret our actions and change for the better.

Redemption can be “turned” into a philosophical term by further defining it using philosophical ideas. For example, if you consequentialistically define “irredeemable” as “this person will never be able to do more good in their life than they have done bad” (which are value judgements) then you have a question of philosophical merit. However, even then it is hardly practical because

1. you cannot really determine a person to be irredeemable until they are definitively dead, because a person might just happen to save a passenger plane seconds before their death¹⁾.
2. saving a passenger plane in their dying breaths doesn't mean very much on its own. Even if you got the opportunity to save a passenger plane from crashing, you probably would do that. Not because you're doing it for the the passengers or even because you value your own life, but because it's the prudent thing to do. In other words, doing a good thing doesn't mean you're a good person, or that you did it for good reasons.
3. Lastly, and this is the most insidious problem with this calculation, a person just might not get much of an opportunity to do good things. If you never get the opportunity to save someone from a burning building or help someone with some things, you're just shit out of luck²⁾.

This is why we, as people, should not really focus on what a person does, has done or will do, but about the person's state of mind: since the person did the bad thing, has their moral compass improved (ie. are they saving the plane out of compassion or out of the goodness of their heart?)? A person who committed heinous murder might have had a broken moral compass but might realize later on and change - redemption. In this sense, real redemption is a progression from a broken moral compass to one that is fit, and this can happen spontaneously at any time, even to people who have done some of the worst crimes imaginable. Whether this happens just after the murder, 5 years into their prison sentence or on their death bed. Anyone's moral compass can at any time change.

Humans improving, “fixing” their moral compass is why the penal system is originally meant to focus strongly on rehabilitation³⁾. People should be imprisoned if they pose a threat to other people (amongst other reasons), but if their moral compass improves then even perpretrators of some of the worst crimes imaginable should not be imprisoned for any longer than necessary to satisfy the pillars of sentencing⁴⁾. Every human deserves to live the best possible life they can possibly have; to say that perpetrators of serious crimes deserve less even if they have underwent major change and the pillars of sentencing are satisfied would be immoral in my eyes.

Ultimately, “salvage” and “redeem” (redemption) are all terms used by victims (those who have been wronged) to describe their (in-)ability to forgive. Their ability to relinquish resentment or some other form of morally inflected anger⁵⁾. When we talk about someone who is irredeemable, the easiest definition after all is still “I personally will never be able to forgive that person”. But, this is inherently subjective (and will never not be subjective) and cannot be generalized into “this person is irredeemable in general”. Any person can fix their moral compass.