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
    The justification of punishment requires a mixed or hybri... — Carmelics
    Home/Justice & Punishment
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The justification of punishment requires a mixed or hybrid account that combines consequentialist and nonconsequentialist considerations.

    Justice & Punishment
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The question of punishment's justification is in fact several different questions, which may be answered by appeal to different considerations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The compelling rationale (general justifying aim) for punishment lies in its beneficial effects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The pursuit of that aim must be constrained by nonconsequentialist principles that preclude the kinds of injustice alleged to flow from a purely consequentialist account.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kant's retributivism demonstrates that punishment's justification is fully grounded in desert alone, without any appeal to beneficial consequences.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the categorical imperative demands punishment of the guilty as a matter of rational respect for persons, then consequences are not merely constrained but irrelevant to justification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A theory requiring consequentialist grounds for punishment's general aim concedes that punishment would be unjustifiable if deterrence or rehabilitation failed, which pure retributivism denies.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Rule consequentialism, as developed by Brandt and Hooker, can generate constraints against punishing the innocent internally, without importing nonconsequentialist principles.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If a single-framework account can derive both the general aim and its limits from consequences at the level of rules rather than acts, then hybrid accounts merely paper over an incomplete consequentialist analysis.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Justice & Punishment

    Related

    A theory requiring consequentialist grounds for punishment's general aim concede...If a single-framework account can derive both the general aim and its limits fro...If the categorical imperative demands punishment of the guilty as a matter of ra...Kant's retributivism demonstrates that punishment's justification is fully groun...
    +5 moreShow less
    Rule consequentialism, as developed by Brandt and Hooker, can generate constrain...The compelling rationale (general justifying aim) for punishment lies in its ben...The pursuit of that aim must be constrained by nonconsequentialist principles th...The question of punishment's justification is in fact several different question...These constraining considerations (e.g., forbidding deliberate punishment of the...

    Similar

    Any adequate justification of punishment must be basically consequenti...88%A purely consequentialist account of punishment is inadequate.87%For both, a full justification of punishment will be 'mixed', appealin...86%A purely consequentialist account of punishment can lead to injustices...85%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: legal-punishment
    View source passageHide passage
    We should not assume, however, that there is only one question of justification, which can receive just one answer. As Hart famously pointed out (Hart 1968: 1–27), we must distinguish at least three justificatory issues. First, what compelling reason is there to create and maintain a system of punishment: what good can it achieve, what duty can it fulfil, what moral demand can it satisfy? (Hart termed this the question of punishment's ‘general justifying aim’, although the term may be misleading in that talk of ‘aims’ may seem to privilege a consequentialist answer to the question, whereas the...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit