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
    It is unsurprising that there should be some agents who h... — Carmelics
    Home/Justice & Punishment
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    It is unsurprising that there should be some agents who have the right to mete out punishment.

    Justice & Punishment
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Retributive desert presupposes forfeiture of the right not to be punished.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Retributive desert concerns rights, not merely what would be a good outcome.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Forfeiture of a right establishes that punishment is permissible, but not that any particular agent holds the correlative power to impose it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The right to punish requires positive institutional authorization, not merely the absence of a victim's protected claim against harm.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Nozick's framework shows that even legitimate rights-enforcement requires procedural reliability, excluding biased or fallible private enforcers.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If punishment rights derive from forfeiture alone, vigilante punishment by private parties would be equally justified, which is a reductio of the position.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Justice & Punishment

    Related

    Forfeiture of a right establishes that punishment is permissible, but not that a...If punishment rights derive from forfeiture alone, vigilante punishment by priva...Nozick's framework shows that even legitimate rights-enforcement requires proced...Retributive desert concerns rights, not merely what would be a good outcome.
    +2 moreShow less
    Retributive desert presupposes forfeiture of the right not to be punished.The right to punish requires positive institutional authorization, not merely th...

    Similar

    It can be just to punish an agent who had no evil intention81%Wrongdoers have a right to be treated as responsible agents who can be...79%Consequentialist punishment fails to respect the person punished as an...78%Exemplary and deterrent punishment does not require that the punished ...77%

    Source

    AI-extracted3/3 agreementValid
    SEP: justice-retributive
    The most promising way to respond to this criticism within a retributive framework...
    View source passageHide passage
    The most promising way to respond to this criticism within a retributive framework is to distinguish two kinds of desert: desert that corresponds to a view about what would be a good outcome, and desert that concerns rights (Hill 1999: 425–426; Berman 2008: 271–281). Dolinko's example concerns the first kind of desert. But insofar as retributive desert presupposes forfeiture of the right not to be punished, it is unsurprising that there should be some agents who have the right to mete it out. Who they are is the subject of the next section.
    Extraction notes

    The passage explicitly states that "insofar as retributive desert presupposes forfeiture of the right not to be punished, it is unsurprising that there should be some agents who have the right to mete it out," and the premises correctly capture the rights-based framing that supports this conclusion.

    Validity:

    Confidence: The argument is clearly stated: distinguishing two kinds of desert (good-outcome desert vs. rights-based desert) and linking retributive desert to rights forfeiture leads to the conclusion about agents having the right to punish.

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit