If the categorical imperative demands punishment of the guilty as a matter of rational respect for persons, then consequences are not merely constrained but irrelevant to justification.

?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.

Immanuel Kant(as the originator of this concept): An 18th-century German philosopher who developed major ideas about ethics, reasoning, and how we understand the world; he's famous for arguing that morality is based on universal rules that apply to everyone equally.
Rational respect for persons(as used in Kantian ethics): Treating people as beings who deserve dignity and deserve to be treated according to fair, logical principles—not as mere tools to achieve results.
categorical imperative(Groundwork, 4.421, 429): The moral law requiring that one will the maxim of an action as a universal law (removing any self-preference) and treat humanity in any person always as an end and never merely as a means
consequences(Contested definition within consequentialist theory): Future events caused by an act, where the scope depends on which notion of causation is used — either restricted to proximate effects or extended to all upshots for which the act is a causally necessary condition.

Based on where you are in your exploration