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
    A purely consequentialist account of punishment is inadeq... — Carmelics
    Home/Justice & Punishment
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    A purely consequentialist account of punishment is inadequate.

    Justice & Punishment
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    0 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.A purely consequentialist account of punishment can lead to injustices such as the deliberate punishment of the innocent or excessively harsh punishment of the guilty.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.There must be nonconsequentialist constraining principles that do not flow from punishment's consequentialist rationale.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Justice & Punishment

    Related

    A purely consequentialist account of punishment can lead to injustices such as t...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
    There must be nonconsequentialist constraining principles that do not flow from ...

    Similar

    A purely consequentialist account of punishment can lead to injustices...93%Any adequate justification of punishment must be basically consequenti...92%The justification of punishment requires a mixed or hybrid account tha...87%A consequentialist must justify punishment as a cost-effective means t...86%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: legal-punishment
    View source passageHide passage
    We should not assume, however, that there is only one question of justification, which can receive just one answer. As Hart famously pointed out (Hart 1968: 1–27), we must distinguish at least three justificatory issues. First, what compelling reason is there to create and maintain a system of punishment: what good can it achieve, what duty can it fulfil, what moral demand can it satisfy? (Hart termed this the question of punishment's ‘general justifying aim’, although the term may be misleading in that talk of ‘aims’ may seem to privilege a consequentialist answer to the question, whereas the...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    1 (0 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit