Requiring retributive justice to be grounded in a broader theoretical framework imposes a foundationalist demand that coherentist and intuitionist traditions have given us strong reasons to reject.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Coherentism(Epistemology; theory of epistemic justification): A doxastic theory of justification holding that only beliefs can serve as evidence, and that justification derives from the internal coherence of a belief system
foundationalism(Presented as the conclusion of the epistemic regress argument): The epistemological view that some beliefs have justification without depending on other beliefs, serving as the non-inferential base for all other justified beliefs
grounded in(whether distinctness or identity is explained by intrinsic features): To be explained by or to have its reason or basis in something else—like how a tree being wet is grounded in (explained by) recent rain.
intuitionism(Mill's characterisation of a target he rejected; linked to conservative deference to inherited belief): The view that anything a person believes deeply enough must be true, such that conviction itself is taken as justification.

Based on where you are in your exploration