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 notion of retributive justice would be on sounder footing if the first justificatory strategy were supplemented by a theoretical justification for punitive hard treatment tied to a more general set of principles of justice.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Retributive intuitions possess independent epistemic authority as moral data points that do not require derivation from more general principles to be justified.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Requiring retributive justice to be grounded in a broader theoretical framework imposes a foundationalist demand that coherentist and intuitionist traditions have given us strong reasons to reject.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Rawls's reflective equilibrium methodology shows that particular moral judgments can constrain general principles, not merely be validated by them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Antony Duff's expressivist account demonstrates that punitive hard treatment can be justified as communicative penance without appealing to general distributive principles of justice.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Tying retribution to a broader theory of justice risks collapsing the distinction between desert-based punishment and consequentialist social regulation, undermining retributivism's core commitments.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The first justificatory strategy for retributive justice does not obviously succeed on its own.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Supplementing with a theoretical justification tied to more general principles of justice would help dispel doubts that retributive intuitions are the crabbed judgments of a squinty, vengeful, or cruel soul.
      ?

      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.