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 Wrongdoing is merely a necessary condition for punishment, not a sufficient condition, and the desert of the wrongdoer does not provide a positive reason to punish.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Desert grounds a positive duty to punish: Kant argues in the Metaphysics of Morals that failing to punish the guilty wrongs them by denying their rational agency.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If wrongdoing merely removes a right against punishment without generating positive reasons, the state's decision to punish becomes morally arbitrary rather than just.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A system that treats punishment as optional when guilt is established cannot account for the moral difference between pardoning and simply ignoring wrongdoing.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Moore's moral intuitionism holds that the suffering of the guilty is intrinsically good, giving desert itself positive moral weight independent of consequentialist goods.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The claim collapses retributivism into a hybrid theory, conflating it with consequentialist justifications that retributivists like Duff explicitly distinguish themselves from.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Wrongdoers forfeit their right not to suffer proportional punishment (the negative component of retributivism).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The positive reasons for punishment must appeal to some other goods that punishment achieves, such as deterrence or incapacitation.
      ?

      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.