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 Communicative retributivism may be the best default position for retributivists.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Antony Duff's communicative framework presupposes a shared moral community between offender and state that is empirically absent in unjust or racially stratified societies.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A theory that assumes legitimate moral dialogue between punisher and punished cannot be a defensible default when the conditions for that dialogue are structurally compromised.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A retributivism grounded in desert alone avoids this communitarian precondition and is therefore more robust across varied social conditions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Pure retributivists like Michael Moore argue hard treatment is intrinsically deserved as a moral response to culpable wrongdoing, not merely instrumental.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If hard treatment requires no communicative justification to be deserved, then communicative retributivism adds unnecessary complexity without resolving the core retributive intuition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Retributive justifications for the hard treatment element of punishment seem inadequate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Communicative retributivism holds that censure is deserved for wrongdoing, but hard treatment is at best justified either instrumentally (for deterrence or incapacitation) or to give meaning to the censure.
      ?

      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.