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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Retributivism has a consequentialist element.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Pure retributivism, as articulated by Kant, holds that punishment is a categorical duty owed to the guilty, not a good to be weighed against others.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If punishment were subject to consequentialist weighing, a sufficiently large benefit could justify not punishing the guilty, which Kant explicitly rejects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A theory that admits overriding by aggregate goods is not retributivism but a hybrid theory, making the claim a category error about retributivism's identity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Michael Moore's agent-relative retributivism grounds punishment in the wrongdoer's desert as a side-constraint, not as a value to be maximized or traded off.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Side-constraint structures, as Nozick distinguished, are logically incompatible with consequentialist weighing because they forbid aggregation across persons.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Describing a side-constraint theory as having a consequentialist element misrepresents the deontological architecture that defines retributivism's normative force.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Retributivism holds that it is intrinsically good if a legitimate punisher punishes the guilty.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.This good has to be weighed against other possible goods to decide what it would be best to do.
      ?

      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.