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 desert is a precise moral fact grounded in the nature of the offense, retributivists need not retreat to limiting thresholds at all.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Desert is not a single precise fact but varies by competing moral frameworks, making 'the' desert amount fundamentally indeterminate.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Even if desert facts exist objectively, society has independent reasons (deterrence, incapacitation) to limit punishments below desert.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Practical implementation requires thresholds—no theory avoids them, only obscures them by calling limits something else.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Moral facts about wrongdoing (like harm severity) are objective features of actions independent of legal systems.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If desert tracks these objective facts precisely, punishment proportional to them requires no external limiting principle.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Limiting thresholds artificially constrain proportionality and prevent giving wrongdoers what they truly deserve.
?
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.