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
    Certain kinds of persons (such as children or the insane)... — Carmelics
    Home/Justice & Punishment
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Certain kinds of persons (such as children or the insane) or entities (such as states or corporations) may not deserve punishment under retributivism.

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

    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.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Retributive punishment requires that the subject be responsible for wrongdoing.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Retributive punishment requires that the subject have the mental ability to appreciate the punishment as conveying condemnation for a wrong done, rather than seeing it simply as hard treatment.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Small children, animals, and the insane may lack both the ability to be responsible and the ability to appreciate condemnation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Corporate entities possess legally recognized agency, make deliberate decisions, and can be held to standards of conduct independently of any individual member.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If retributive desert tracks culpable agency rather than individual human psychology, corporations that knowingly cause harm satisfy the agency condition for desert.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Excluding corporations from retributive punishment conflates the psychological conditions for individual desert with the structural conditions for institutional desert.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.P.F. Strawson's reactive attitudes framework grounds desert in relationships of moral address, not solely in metaphysical capacity for rational self-governance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.On a Strawsonian account, the insane are excused not because desert is inapplicable but because holding reactive attitudes toward them is inappropriate given our caring practices.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This distinguishes inapplicability of punishment from absence of desert, undermining the claim that the insane categorically fall outside retributive moral accounting.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Topics

    Justice & Punishment

    Related

    A person who is only temporarily insane might lack one ability but not the other...Corporate entities possess legally recognized agency, make deliberate decisions,...Excluding corporations from retributive punishment conflates the psychological c...If retributive desert tracks culpable agency rather than individual human psycho...
    +6 moreShow less
    On a Strawsonian account, the insane are excused not because desert is inapplica...P.F. Strawson's reactive attitudes framework grounds desert in relationships of ...Retributive punishment requires that the subject be responsible for wrongdoing.Retributive punishment requires that the subject have the mental ability to appr...Small children, animals, and the insane may lack both the ability to be responsi...This distinguishes inapplicability of punishment from absence of desert, undermi...

    Similar

    Under retributivism, punishment is appropriate only if it is deserved83%Under retributivism, punishment is never deserved if the crime was not...82%Some retributivists hold that wrongdoers have a 'right to be punished'...81%Negative retributivism is framed as the view that it is impermissible ...80%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: justice-retributive
    View source passageHide passage
    Retributivism presents no special puzzles about who is the desert subject: the wrongdoer. What may be particularly problematic for retributivism is the claim that certain kinds of persons (children or the insane) or entities (states or corporations) can or cannot deserve punishment. The fundamental issues are twofold: First, can the subject be responsible for wrongdoing? Second, does the subject have the mental (or information processing) ability to appreciate the punishment as conveying condemnation for a wrong done, rather than seeing it simply as hard treatment? Small children, animals, and...

    Details

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