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 Antony Duff's communicative theory of punishment holds that punishment constitutes the whole complex of burdens imposed, not merely those narrowly intended by the punisher.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Collateral harms often depend on offenders' contingent circumstances, not the punishment's inherent communicative content.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Including all causal burdens makes punishment assessment subjective and inconsistent across similarly situated offenders.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The state cannot be held responsible for every downstream consequence; limiting scope to intended burdens is administratively necessary.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Punishment's moral legitimacy depends on communicating censure to the offender, requiring holistic burden accounting.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Unintended harms (lost employment, family rupture) are causally and morally inseparable from the punishment itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Narrow intent-based definitions allow states to evade responsibility for predictable collateral damage to offenders.
      ?

      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.