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 Moore and Kant ground proportionality in the gravity of the offense itself, not in the offender's psychological constitution.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Ignoring psychological constitution treats morally different actors identically—a drunk driver and reckless one cause equal harm differently.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Proportionality without mens rea considerations punishes diminished responsibility equally to full intentionality, violating fairness.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Effective deterrence and rehabilitation require tailoring punishment to individual psychology, which gravity-alone approaches preclude.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Justice requires that identical wrongs receive identical punishments regardless of who commits them, ensuring impartial rule of law.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Grounding punishment in offense gravity alone prevents subjective bias based on offender's mental state or background.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Retributive proportionality reflects the objective moral wrongness of the act itself, not the perpetrator's internal capacities.
?
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.