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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.