A pure retributivist can coherently reject the limiting compromise by accepting that proportionality vagueness is an epistemic problem, not a metaphysical one requiring theoretical revision.
?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.
Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.
The problem that it's unclear or fuzzy how to match a punishment to a crime fairly—there's no exact formula for what each crime 'deserves.'
Pure retributivist(in theories of justice)
Someone who believes punishment should be based only on what someone deserves for their wrongdoing, without considering other goals like rehabilitation or deterrence.
Retributivism(as used in ethics and justice philosophy)
A theory of punishment that says people deserve to be punished in proportion to the harm they caused—the worse the crime, the harsher the punishment should be.
metaphysical(Ayer's Logical Positivist usage)
Language that purports to refer beyond the physical world and lacks empirical consequences, which Ayer classifies as not literally significant