Kantian Review 1:115-135 (1997)

Abstract
Unlike that of most liberal thinkers, Kant's theory of punishment is unabashedly retributive. For classical liberals punishment is justified only by the harms it can prevent, not by any allegedly intrinsic good served by making the guilty suffer. Here Hobbes' blunt insistence that the aim of punishment ‘is not a revenge, but terror’ is prototypical in substance, if not in style. Hobbes, Locke, Mill, Bentham and Beccaria, for all their differences, agree that punishment must look to future good rather than to avenging past wrongs. This attitude on the part of classic liberalism toward retribution is not surprising, given its association with the kind of theocratic politics liberalism arose to combat
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/S136941540000008X
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 50,447
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Lectures on Ethics.Immanuel Kant - 1980 - In Elizabeth Schmidt Radcliffe, Richard McCarty, Fritz Allhoff & Anand Vaidya (eds.), International Journal of Ethics. Blackwell. pp. 104-106.
Kant’s Theory of Punishment.Samuel Fleischacker - 1988 - Kant-Studien 79 (1-4):434-449.

View all 6 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP index
2013-11-01

Total views
52 ( #177,622 of 2,326,342 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
4 ( #212,154 of 2,326,342 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes