Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that If both Y and Z are fully responsible for X's crime, justice cannot determine proportionate punishment without double-counting a single wrong.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Full responsibility can attach to multiple agents independently; Y's and Z's separate culpability each warrant proportionate consequences without logical duplication.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Punishing both parties appropriately reflects the actual causal and moral contributions each made, which are distinct facts even when the outcome is singular.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Justice may require holding each responsible actor accountable according to their own conduct, regardless of how many others share responsibility for the same act.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
A single wrongful act has a fixed moral magnitude; punishing it twice violates the principle that punishment should match the harm caused.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If Y and Z are both fully responsible, sentencing each to proportionate punishment for the complete crime results in total punishment exceeding the crime's actual gravity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Justice requires that the sum of all punishments reflect the actual wrong committed, not multiples of it.
?
How convincing is this?
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.