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 state's response to crimes should focus on rehabilitation rather than retribution, treating offenders as morally responsible agents but not blaming them.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Moral responsibility, as P.F. Strawson argues in 'Freedom and Resentment', is constitutively linked to reactive attitudes like blame and resentment.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.To treat offenders as responsible agents while systematically withholding blame is to engage in a performative contradiction that undermines the very respect it claims to extend.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A system that rehabilitates without blaming treats offenders as objects of therapeutic management, not as moral equals accountable to shared norms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The argument commits a genetic fallacy: the pernicious social effects of affective blame do not refute the independent normative justification for proportionate retributive censure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Antony Duff's communicative theory demonstrates that state punishment can express warranted blame through hard treatment without collapsing into hatred or contempt.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Eliminating blame from criminal justice severs the expressive link between punishment and the moral wrongness of the act, reducing punishment to mere social hygiene.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The affective aspect of blame — its realisation in negative reactive attitudes such as anger, hatred, and contempt — has pernicious effects when manifested in the criminal law.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Emotion-laden blame fosters all-encompassing condemnations of offenders, rather than condemnation merely of their crimes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Affective blame has contributed to overcriminalisation, overly harsh sentencing, and mass incarceration.
      ?

      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.