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
    Negative retributivism is problematic. — Carmelics
    Home/Justice & Punishment
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Negative retributivism is problematic.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Negative retributivism sets only upper bounds on punishment, leaving all decisions below that threshold to consequentialist calculation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Allowing consequentialist reasoning within retributive limits permits punishing innocents lightly if social utility demands it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Kant's categorical imperative prohibits treating persons merely as means regardless of whether the violation is partial or total.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.A coherent theory of punishment must explain why desert generates positive reasons to punish, not merely side-constraints on other goals.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Negative retributivism, as Moore notes, cannot distinguish between a just punishment and a fortuitously useful one that happens to stay within desert limits.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If desert has genuine moral weight, it must sometimes positively require proportionate punishment rather than merely permitting lesser responses.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • Negative retributivism seems to justify using people merely as a means (within retributive limits) for promoting the greater good.
      ?

      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

    A coherent theory of punishment must explain why desert generates positive reaso...Allowing consequentialist reasoning within retributive limits permits punishing ...If desert has genuine moral weight, it must sometimes positively require proport...Kant's categorical imperative prohibits treating persons merely as means regardl...
    +3 moreShow less
    Negative retributivism seems to justify using people merely as a means (within r...Negative retributivism sets only upper bounds on punishment, leaving all decisio...Negative retributivism, as Moore notes, cannot distinguish between a just punish...

    Similar

    Negative retributivism, as standardly framed, contains a contradiction...87%Positive retributivism is favored over negative retributivism.86%Negative retributivism is framed as the view that it is impermissible ...85%Communicative retributivism may be the best default position for retri...84%

    Source

    AI-extracted3/3 agreementValid
    SEP: justice-retributive
    View source passageHide passage
    Nonetheless, there are three reasons it is important to distinguish the two, and taken together they speak in favor of positive retributivism. First, negative retributivism seems to justify using people merely as a means (within retributive limits) for promoting the greater good (Duff 2001: 13). The thought that punishment treats wrongdoers as they deserve to be treated addresses this problem.
    Extraction notes

    Validity: The passage explicitly states that negative retributivism seems to justify using people merely as a means for promoting the greater good, which is presented as a problem with negative retributivism, thus attacking (i.e., criticizing) it.

    Confidence: Clearly stated critique of negative retributivism.

    Details

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