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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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