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 Retributive justice requires proportionality: punishment must be commensurate in magnitude with the gravity of the offense (Kant, Metaphysics of Morals).
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Proportionality presumes commensurability: we cannot objectively measure whether, say, 8 years equals a specific moral wrong.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Proportionality may ignore consequentialist benefits: severe punishment might deter future crimes more effectively than proportional sentences.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Determining 'gravity' depends on subjective cultural and individual values, undermining proportionality's claim to objective justification.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Without proportionality constraints, punishment becomes arbitrary and subject to abuse by those wielding state power.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Proportionality respects offenders as moral agents: it treats them as deserving consequences linked to their culpable choices.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Victims experience proportional punishment as legitimate moral vindication of their wrongful harm.
?
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.