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 It is important to punish wrongdoers with proportional hard treatment, even if no other good would thereby be brought about.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Moral intuitions about punishment are shaped by retributive emotions like vengeance, which evolutionary debunking arguments show are unreliable guides to moral truth.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.When an intuition's causal origin is better explained by adaptive fitness than by moral truth-tracking, we have strong reason to distrust it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, the widespread intuition favoring proportional hard treatment lacks the epistemic foundation needed to justify inflicting suffering on a person.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.On Kant's own retributive framework, punishment is justified only insofar as it respects the rational agency of the wrongdoer, not merely because suffering balances a moral ledger.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Inflicting hard treatment that produces no good for society, victim, or offender fails to treat the wrongdoer as a rational end in themselves and reduces punishment to pure suffering.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A retributivism that cannot articulate what positive value the suffering realizes collapses into gratuitous cruelty, which even Kant's categorical imperative cannot license.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Most people intuitively think that it is important to punish wrongdoers with proportional hard treatment, even if no other good would thereby be brought about.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.There is no reason to doubt that these intuitions are reliable.
      ?

      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.