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 Punishment is justified as an intrinsically appropriate response to wrongdoing because it is deserved.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
P.F. Strawson and consequentialists argue that reactive attitudes like indignation ground punishment in emotional responses, not metaphysical desert.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If desert is reducible to socially contingent reactive attitudes, punishment cannot be intrinsically appropriate independent of its social effects.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
A response that derives its legitimacy entirely from contingent attitudes is justified instrumentally, not intrinsically.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Desert claims require an independent criterion of proportionality, but retributivism provides no non-circular standard for matching punishment to wrongdoing.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Without such a standard, 'deserved punishment' reduces to an intuitive judgment that cannot justify any specific penal practice.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Wrongdoing deserves punishment.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A deserved response to wrongdoing is intrinsically appropriate.
?
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.