The objections leveled at pure consequentialism (e.g., punishing the innocent) and pure retributivism (e.g., pointless suffering) arise precisely from the absence of corrective constraints the other theory provides.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Corrective constraints(as used in comparing ethical theories): Limits or rules that prevent a theory from going too far—in this case, moral principles that stop one theory from creating obviously unfair situations.
Pure consequentialism(as used in ethics): A strict version of consequentialism with no other moral rules—the only thing that matters is getting the best outcome, period.
Pure retributivism(contrasted with consequentialist approaches in the statement): A strict version of retributivism that justifies punishment solely because wrongdoers deserve it, without needing to prove it prevents future crimes or reforms people.
Retributivism(as used in ethics and justice philosophy): A theory of punishment that says people deserve to be punished in proportion to the harm they caused—the worse the crime, the harsher the punishment should be.

Based on where you are in your exploration