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
    Positive retributivism is favored over negative retributi... — Carmelics
    Home/Justice & Punishment
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Positive retributivism is favored over negative retributivism.

    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.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

    • 2.The thought that punishment treats wrongdoers as they deserve to be treated addresses this problem.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Negative retributivism's constraint that only the guilty may be punished is fully compatible with non-instrumentalizing desert-based side-constraints.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A theory need not positively mandate punishment to treat offenders as ends in themselves; forbidding punishment of the innocent suffices to respect persons.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Positive retributivism's obligation to punish all guilty parties risks treating punishment as an impersonal cosmic debt rather than a response to a particular person's wrong.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.H.L.A. Hart's mixed theory demonstrates that distributive justice (who may be punished) can be grounded in desert without requiring desert to justify punishment's general aim.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Conflating the question of punishment's justifying aim with the question of its proper distribution illegitimately burdens negative retributivism with a problem it was never designed to solve.
      ?

      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 theory need not positively mandate punishment to treat offenders as ends in th...Conflating the question of punishment's justifying aim with the question of its ...H.L.A. Hart's mixed theory demonstrates that distributive justice (who may be pu...Negative retributivism seems to justify using people merely as a means (within r...
    +3 moreShow less
    Negative retributivism's constraint that only the guilty may be punished is full...Positive retributivism's obligation to punish all guilty parties risks treating ...The thought that punishment treats wrongdoers as they deserve to be treated addr...

    Similar

    Communicative retributivism may be the best default position for retri...87%The line between negative retributivism and retributivism that posits ...86%Negative retributivism is problematic.86%Negative retributivism is framed as the view that it is impermissible ...84%

    Source

    AI-extracted2/3 agreementValid
    SEP: justice-retributive
    Duff 2001: 13
    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 this point (among others) speaks "in favor of positive retributivism," and the premises capture the reasoning that negative retributivism has a flaw (using people as means) that positive retributivism addresses.

    Confidence: The text explicitly states this is one of three reasons favoring positive retributivism, and the reasoning is clearly laid out.

    Details

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