Conflating the question of punishment's justifying aim with the question of its proper distribution illegitimately burdens negative retributivism with a problem it was never designed to solve.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Conflating: Conflating means mixing together or treating two different things as if they were the same thing, when they're actually distinct. It's a logical error where someone blurs important differences between concepts, ideas, or situations to make an argument seem stronger than it is. For example, conflating "being critical of a policy" with "being disloyal to your country" wrongly equates two separate things.
Justifying aim(as the general purpose of punishment): The main reason or goal that explains why an entire system or practice exists and is morally acceptable.
Negative retributivism(as used in philosophy of punishment): A form of retributivism focused on limiting punishment to only what is deserved, rather than actively requiring punishment as a moral duty.
Proper distribution(as used in philosophy of punishment): The fair and correct way to divide or allocate something—here, how to fairly decide who gets punished and how much.

Based on where you are in your exploration