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 line between negative retributivism and retributivism... — Carmelics
    Home/Justice & Punishment
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The line between negative retributivism and retributivism that posits a weak positive reason to punish may seem unimportant.

    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.A negative retributivist holds that the justification for punishment must come completely from its instrumental value.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A positive retributivist who thinks that the reasons provided by desert are relatively weak may say that most of what justifies punishment comes from the same instrumental bases.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.For both, a full justification of punishment will be 'mixed', appealing to both retributive and consequentialist ideas.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Negative retributivism treats desert as a side-constraint, never as a reason to punish, while positive retributivism treats desert as a genuine pro tanto reason to punish.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.This structural difference produces divergent verdicts when instrumental reasons are absent: negative retributivism forbids punishment while positive retributivism permits or requires it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A distinction that generates different normative verdicts in real cases is philosophically important, regardless of how often those cases arise.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kant's retributivism holds that failing to punish the guilty wrongs them by denying respect for their rational agency, making the positive reason to punish a matter of dignity, not mere consequence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.This Kantian positive duty to punish cannot be assimilated to negative retributivism's purely instrumental justification without distorting the deontological structure that grounds the entire theory.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The conflation of weak positive and negative retributivism thus obscures the foundational moral disagreement about whether justice itself demands punishment.
      ?

      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 distinction that generates different normative verdicts in real cases is philo...A negative retributivist holds that the justification for punishment must come c...A positive retributivist who thinks that the reasons provided by desert are rela...For both, a full justification of punishment will be 'mixed', appealing to both ...
    +5 moreShow less
    Kant's retributivism holds that failing to punish the guilty wrongs them by deny...Negative retributivism treats desert as a side-constraint, never as a reason to ...The conflation of weak positive and negative retributivism thus obscures the fou...This Kantian positive duty to punish cannot be assimilated to negative retributi...This structural difference produces divergent verdicts when instrumental reasons...

    Similar

    A negative retributivist holds that the justification for punishment m...87%Positive retributivism is favored over negative retributivism.86%Negative retributivism is framed as the view that it is impermissible ...84%The argument that retributivism justifies punishment better than conse...83%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: justice-retributive
    View source passageHide passage
    The line between negative retributivism and retributivism that posits a weak positive reason to punish may seem unimportant. A negative retributivist holds that the justification for punishment must come completely from its instrumental value. A positive retributivist who thinks that the reasons provided by desert are relatively weak may say that most of what justifies punishment comes from the same instrumental bases. For both, a full justification of punishment will be “mixed”, appealing to both retributive and consequentialist ideas (Garvey 2004: 449–451).

    Details

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