Neuroethics 14 (2):177-190 (2020)

Authors
Sofia M.I. Jeppsson
Umeå University
Abstract
Harming other people is prima facie wrong. Unless we can be very certain that doing so is justified under the circumstances, we ought not to do it. In this paper, I argue that we ought to dismantle harsh retributivist criminal justice systems for this reason; we cannot be sufficiently certain that the harm is justified. Gregg Caruso, Ben Vilhauer and others have previously argued for the same conclusion; however, my own version sidesteps certain controversial premises of theirs. Harsh retributivist criminal justice can only be morally right if the following three propositions are true: Moral responsibility exists, retributivism is right, and we can find out how much punishment offenders deserve for their crimes. Suppose that we initially assign a high credence to each of the three propositions; I assume for the sake of argument that there are good arguments in support of each. Nevertheless, these arguments ultimately depend on intuitions. Since we have philosophical peers whose intuitions differ from ours, we ought to downgrade our credence in each. However, even slightly less credence in each proposition means far less credence in a conjunction of all three. Since the stakes are high and there are morally safer options for a criminal justice system, we ought to dismantle harsh retributivist ones.
Keywords retributivism  criminal justice  epistemic argument  peer disagreement  credence  moral uncertainty  decision under uncertainty  desert  moral responsibility  intuition
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2021
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s12152-020-09436-6
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Translate to english
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 71,259
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

Freedom and Resentment.Peter Strawson - 1962 - Proceedings of the British Academy 48:187-211.
An Essay on Free Will.Peter Van Inwagen - 1983 - Oxford University Press.
Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility.Harry Frankfurt - 1969 - Journal of Philosophy 66 (23):829.

View all 67 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Retributivism Revisited.Nathan Hanna - 2014 - Philosophical Studies 167 (2):473-484.
Epistemic Justification Revisited.Sanford C. Goldberg - 2016 - Journal of Philosophical Research 41 (9999):1-16.
Guit, Anger, and Retribution.Raffaele Rodogno - 2010 - Legal Theory 16 (1):59-76.
Is There Epistemologically Irrational Knowledge?Manuel Pérez Otero - 2018 - Principia: An International Journal of Epistemology 22 (2):229-249.
Reciprocity as a Justification for Retributivism.Jami L. Anderson - 1997 - Criminal Justice Ethics 16 (1):13-25.
Against Swamping.J. Adam Carter & Benjamin Jarvis - 2012 - Analysis 72 (4):690-699.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2020-05-30

Total views
44 ( #259,160 of 2,518,718 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
25 ( #35,005 of 2,518,718 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes