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
    Any adequate justification of punishment must be basicall... — Carmelics
    Home/Justice & Punishment
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Any adequate justification of punishment must be basically consequentialist.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Punishment is a practice that inflicts, indeed seeks to inflict, significant hardship or burdens.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The only way to justify a practice that deliberately inflicts significant hardship is by showing that it brings consequential benefits sufficiently large to outweigh those burdens.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Punishment expresses deserved censure for wrongdoing, and desert-based responses can be morally obligatory independent of their consequences.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Kant's retributivism holds that failing to punish the guilty wrongs them by denying their status as rational moral agents responsible for their choices.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If some moral obligations arise from respect for persons rather than outcomes, P2's claim that only consequential benefits justify hardship is false.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Consequentialist justifications permit punishing the innocent whenever doing so maximizes net welfare, which violates a near-universal constraint on just punishment.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A justification that licenses clear injustices in principle cannot be an adequate justification of punishment, regardless of its practical track record.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    Topics

    Justice & Punishment

    Related

    A justification that licenses clear injustices in principle cannot be an adequat...Consequentialist justifications permit punishing the innocent whenever doing so ...If some moral obligations arise from respect for persons rather than outcomes, P...Kant's retributivism holds that failing to punish the guilty wrongs them by deny...
    +3 moreShow less
    Punishment expresses deserved censure for wrongdoing, and desert-based responses...Punishment is a practice that inflicts, indeed seeks to inflict, significant har...The only way to justify a practice that deliberately inflicts significant hardsh...

    Similar

    A purely consequentialist account of punishment is inadequate.92%A consequentialist must justify punishment as a cost-effective means t...92%The justification of punishment requires a mixed or hybrid account tha...88%A purely consequentialist account of punishment can lead to injustices...88%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: legal-punishment
    View source passageHide passage
    Many people, including those who do not take a consequentialist view of other matters, think that any adequate justification of punishment must be basically consequentialist. For we have here a practice that inflicts, indeed seeks to inflict, significant hardship or burdens: how else could we hope to justify it than by showing that it brings consequential benefits sufficiently large to outweigh, and thus to justify, those burdens? We need not be Benthamite utilitarians to be moved by Bentham’s famous remark that “all punishment in itself is evil. ... [I]f it ought at all to be admitted, it oug...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit