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
    There is reason to continue to take the notion of retribu... — Carmelics
    Home/Justice & Punishment
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    There is reason to continue to take the notion of retributive justice, and the project of justifying it, seriously.

    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.The negative desert claim holds that only proportional punishment may be inflicted.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The positive desert claim holds that proportional punishment is morally deserved and in that sense respectful of the wrongdoer.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Giving up the idea that morality imposes a proportionality limit on punishment is intuitively difficult.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Desert-based justifications presuppose robust libertarian free will, which neuroscience and hard determinism render empirically untenable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If agents lack the ultimate sourcehood required for genuine desert, retributive punishment inflicts suffering without morally coherent justification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Consequentialist frameworks like Strawsonian reactive attitudes can preserve punishment's legitimacy without metaphysically loaded desert claims.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Proportionality in retributivism requires commensurability between suffering and wrongdoing, but no principled metric for this equivalence exists.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Without a coherent cardinal scaling of offense severity to punishment severity, retributivism collapses into intuition-tracking rather than principled justification.
      ?

      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

    Consequentialist frameworks like Strawsonian reactive attitudes can preserve pun...Desert-based justifications presuppose robust libertarian free will, which neuro...Giving up the idea that morality imposes a proportionality limit on punishment i...Giving up the importance of positive moral desert for justifying punishment up t...
    +5 moreShow less
    If agents lack the ultimate sourcehood required for genuine desert, retributive ...Proportionality in retributivism requires commensurability between suffering and...The negative desert claim holds that only proportional punishment may be inflict...The positive desert claim holds that proportional punishment is morally deserved...Without a coherent cardinal scaling of offense severity to punishment severity, ...

    Similar

    The concept of retributive justice has evolved.85%Any quest for the justification of retributive justice must start with...85%Negative retributivism is framed as the view that it is impermissible ...82%The core of the concept of retributive justice is no longer debt repay...82%

    Source

    AI-extracted3/3 agreementValid
    SEP: justice-retributive
    This limitation to proportional punishment is central to retributivism...
    View source passageHide passage
    This limitation to proportional punishment is central to retributivism. The negative desert claim holds that only that much punishment may be inflicted, and the positive desert claim holds that that much punishment, but no more, is morally deserved and in that sense respectful of the wrongdoer. Unless one is willing to give up on the idea that morality imposes a proportionality limit and on the importance of positive moral desert for justifying punishment up to that point as respectful of the individual—both intuitively difficult to give up—there is reason to continue to take notion of retribu...
    Extraction notes

    Validity: The extracted argument accurately captures the passage's reasoning: premises 1 and 2 establish the core claims of retributivism, premises 3 and 4 note that abandoning these claims is intuitively difficult, and the passage explicitly draws the conclusion that there is therefore reason to take retributive justice seriously.

    Confidence: Clear argument with explicit premises leading to a stated conclusion.

    Details

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