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 Retributivism and revenge share the same foundational logic: the wrongdoer deserves to suffer in proportion to the harm inflicted.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Retributivism aims at justice through impartial institutions; revenge seeks personal satisfaction—fundamentally different goals.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Retributivism requires proportional *constraint*; revenge is unlimited emotional response with no principled upper bound.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Retributivism can coexist with rehabilitation and reintegration; revenge is incompatible with any benefit to the wrongdoer.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Both retributivism and revenge operate on proportionality: inflicting suffering equal to harm caused.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Both reject consequentialist justifications and focus on what the wrongdoer morally deserves, not outcomes.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Both satisfy a deep intuition that moral wrongs create debts payable through suffering by the perpetrator.
?
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.