Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Honor and Revenge: A Theory of PunishmentCan Retributive Punishment Be Justified?

Honor and Revenge: A Theory of Punishment: Can Retributive Punishment Be Justified? [The most important and influential theory of punishment both historically and in the present day is the retributive theory, according to which punishment should be inflicted simply because the wrongdoer deserves it, irrespective of any future benefits such as crime prevention. The problem has been to explain what the purpose of inflicting harm on wrongdoers could be, and how it could be consistent with moral theory. The problem for retributivism has been the bewildering variety of distinct explanations of why morality requires retribution, and the fact that every theory offered appears subject to decisive objections. It is for this reason that retributivists tend to fall back on metaphors (getting even, balancing the scales, etc.) rather than rational explanation. But metaphors will not do; in order to justify infliction of harm on someone, we need a very strong and clear moral justification, something that the retributivist tradition has been unable to provide.] http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png

Honor and Revenge: A Theory of PunishmentCan Retributive Punishment Be Justified?

Download PDF
26 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/honor-and-revenge-a-theory-of-punishment-can-retributive-punishment-be-06hDQ0u7gy
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Copyright
© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013
ISBN
978-94-007-4844-6
Pages
47 –72
DOI
10.1007/978-94-007-4845-3_3
Publisher site
See Chapter on Publisher Site

Abstract

[The most important and influential theory of punishment both historically and in the present day is the retributive theory, according to which punishment should be inflicted simply because the wrongdoer deserves it, irrespective of any future benefits such as crime prevention. The problem has been to explain what the purpose of inflicting harm on wrongdoers could be, and how it could be consistent with moral theory. The problem for retributivism has been the bewildering variety of distinct explanations of why morality requires retribution, and the fact that every theory offered appears subject to decisive objections. It is for this reason that retributivists tend to fall back on metaphors (getting even, balancing the scales, etc.) rather than rational explanation. But metaphors will not do; in order to justify infliction of harm on someone, we need a very strong and clear moral justification, something that the retributivist tradition has been unable to provide.]

Published: Aug 1, 2012

Keywords: Expressive Theory; Moral Justification; Rational Justification; Unfair Advantage; Retributive Justice

There are no references for this article.