David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophical Studies 162 (2):143-163 (2013)
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 Retribution Retributivism Rawls Free will skepticism Moral responsibility Punishment Due process Deterrence|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Benjamin Vilhauer (2009). Free Will Skepticism and Personhood as a Desert Base. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 39 (3):pp. 489-511.
Thom Brooks (2004). Retributivist Arguments Against Capital Punishment. Journal of Social Philosophy 35 (2):188–197.
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.
Mitchell N. Berman (2013). Rehabilitating Retributivism. Law and Philosophy 32 (1):83-108.
Lene Bomann-Larsen (2009). Revisionism and Desert. Criminal Law and Philosophy 4 (1):1-16.
Göran Duus-Otterström (2010). Fallibility and Retribution. Law and Philosophy 29 (3):337-369.
Tamler Sommers (forthcoming). Partial Desert. In David Shoemaker (ed.), Oxford Studies in Agency and Responsibility. Oxford University Press.
J. Angelo Corlett (2001). Making Sense of Retributivism. Philosophy 76 (1):77-110.
Jami L. Anderson (1997). Reciprocity as a Justification for Retributivism. Criminal Justice Ethics 16 (1):13-25.
J. Angelo Corlett (2003). Making More Sense of Retributivism: Desert as Responsibility and Proportionality. Philosophy 78 (2):279-287.
George Schedler (2011). Retributivism and Fallible Systems of Punishment. Criminal Justice Ethics 30 (3):240-266.
Howard Simmons (2010). Moral Desert: A Critique. University Press of America.
Leo Zaibert (2006). The Fitting, the Deserving, and the Beautiful. Journal of Moral Philosophy 3 (3):331-350.
Added to index2011-04-27
Total downloads32 ( #44,933 of 1,004,641 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,617 of 1,004,641 )
How can I increase my downloads?