Persons, punishment, and free will skepticism

Philosophical Studies 162 (2):143-163 (2013)
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to provide a justification of punishment which can be endorsed by free will skeptics, and which can also be defended against the "using persons as mere means" objection. Free will skeptics must reject retributivism, that is, the view that punishment is just because criminals deserve to suffer based on their actions. Retributivists often claim that theirs is the only justification on which punishment is constrained by desert, and suppose that non-retributive justifications must therefore endorse treating the people punished as mere means to social ends. Retributivists typically presuppose a monolithic conception of desert: they assume that action-based desert is the only kind of desert. But there are also personhood-based desert claims, that is, desert claims which depend not on facts about our actions, but instead on the more abstract fact that we are persons. Since personhood-based desert claims do not depend on facts about our actions, they do not depend on moral responsibility, so free will skeptics can appeal to them just as well as retributivists. What people deserve based on the mere fact of their personhood is to be treated as they would rationally consent to be treated if all they had in view was the mere fact of their personhood. We can work out the implications of this view for punishment by developing a hypothetical consent justification in which we select principles of punishment in the Rawlsian original position, so long as we are careful not to smuggle in the retributivist assumption that it is under our control whether we end up as criminals or as law-abiding citizens once we raise the veil of ignorance
Keywords Free will  Personhood  Desert  Retributivism  Rawls  Free will skepticism  Moral responsibility  Punishment  Due process  Kant
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 10,928
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

View all 26 references

Citations of this work BETA
Similar books and articles
Nathan Hanna (2013). Two Claims About Desert. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 94 (1):41-56.
Nathan Hanna (2014). Retributivism Revisited. Philosophical Studies 167 (2):473-484.
Stephen Kershnar (1999). Objections to the Systematic Imposition of Punitive Torture. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 13 (1):47-56.
Lene Bomann-Larsen (2009). Revisionism and Desert. Criminal Law and Philosophy 4 (1):1-16.
Analytics

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2011-04-27

Total downloads

41 ( #40,884 of 1,100,501 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

9 ( #22,754 of 1,100,501 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Start a new thread
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.