Imagine someone robs your house, causes untold damage, takes all your valuables and shoots your wife, your child, and your dog.
The robbers voluntarily give back the clock you had on the mantelpiece and $20, claiming they feel bad. You get nothing else but those things. The clock is blood-spattered and cracked. But hey, that $20 counts for something, right?
If it avoids them suffering consequences for the original theft, thus leading them to the same con again and again and again because they always win from it, it’s actually a bad thing.
Imagine someone robs your house, causes untold damage, takes all your valuables and shoots your wife, your child, and your dog.
The robbers voluntarily give back the clock you had on the mantelpiece and $20, claiming they feel bad. You get nothing else but those things. The clock is blood-spattered and cracked. But hey, that $20 counts for something, right?
Would you rather they kept it?
This is frankly baffling. Nobody is saying this should be the only thing to be done. Just that it’s a good thing. Is it not a good thing?
If it avoids them suffering consequences for the original theft, thus leading them to the same con again and again and again because they always win from it, it’s actually a bad thing.
If everything from my house was stolen but I was given a tiny useless token back, no, no that isn’t better than getting nothing at all.
I’m not saying it’s not a good thing, I’m implying how much of a good thing it is.
Would you rather not get anything because it’s not good enough?? you’re literally letting perfect be in the way of good