Punishment and DesertSuperficial acquaintance with the literature on punishment leaves a fairly definite impression. There are two approaches to punishment - retributive and utilitarian - and while some attempts may be made to reconcile them, it is the former rather than the latter which requires the reconciliation. Taken by itself the retributive approach is primitive and unenlightened, falling short of the rational civilized humanitarian values which we have now acquired. Certainly this is the dominant impression left by 'popular' discussions of the SUbject. And retributive vs. utilitarian seems to be the mould in which most philosophical dis cussions are cast. The issues are far more complex than this. Punishment may be con sidered in a great variety of contexts - legal, educational, parental, theological, informal, etc. - and in each of these contexts several im portant moral questions arise. Approaches which see only a simple choice between retributivism and utilitarianism tend to obscure this variety and plurality. But even more seriously, the distinction between retributivism and utilitarianism is far from clear. That it reflects the traditional distinction between deontological and teleological ap proaches to ethics serves to transfer rather than to resolve the un clarity. Usually it is said that retributive approaches seek to justify acts by reference to features which are intrinsic to them, whereas utilitarian approaches appeal to the consequences of such acts. This, however, makes assumptions about the individuation of acts which are difficult to justify. |
Contents
Definitions JUSTIFICATION AND Punishment | 10 |
Punishment is meted out for moral wrongs | 25 |
Punishment is inflicted on offenders | 34 |
Copyright | |
10 other sections not shown
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
action American Institute assessments authority Benn blame C. S. Lewis Chapter Clarendon Press conception context Crime and Punishment Criminal Law Criminal Responsibility criteria determine difficulties Edited by H. B. evil example forgiveness G. E. M. Anscombe grounds H. B. Acton H. L. A. Hart harm Hegel Hibbert Journal human Ibid imposition impossible imprisonment injustice Institute of Criminal institutionalized International Journal Journal of Ethics justice Justification of Punishment justificatory latter Law and Criminology Law Review lex talionis London Mabbott Macmillan mens rea ment mercy Meta-ethics moral responsibility moral wrongdoing murder N.S. Vol Normative offence Oxford particular Penal penalty person Philosophical Review Philosophy of Punishment Principles Prize problems question Quinton Rawls reasons relation relevant Reprinted Res Judicatae retributive revenge rules sense simply Social speak specific desert claims sphere of discourse suffering Theory of Punishment things tion treatment University Press utilitarian utilitarian considerations wrong