Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that A consequentialist must justify punishment as a cost-effective means to certain independently identifiable goods.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Rule consequentialists justify punishment by appeal to rules whose general acceptance maximizes welfare, not by evaluating each punitive act individually.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the rule 'punish offenders proportionally' produces optimal outcomes when generally followed, punishment needs no further act-level cost-benefit justification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, consequentialism can justify punishment through rule-compliance rather than case-by-case instrumental calculation of independently identifiable goods.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Consequentialists like Mill held that justice is a name for certain indispensable social utilities, making desert itself a consequentially grounded value.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If retributive intuitions about desert are themselves explained and vindicated by their role in sustaining cooperative social order, the goods punishment tracks are not 'independently identifiable' from retributive considerations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The claim falsely presupposes a clean separation between consequentialist and retributive justifications that indirect consequentialism deliberately collapses.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • Consequentialism requires that actions (including institutional practices like punishment) be justified by the goods they produce.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.