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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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