Prepunishment for compatibilists: A reply to Kearns

Analysis 68 (299):254–257 (2008)
Abstract
I have argued recently that compatibilism cannot resist in a principled way the temptation to prepunish people, and that it thus emerges as a much more radical view than is typically presented and perceived; and is at odds with fundamental moral intuitions (Smilansky 2007a). Stephen Kearns (2008) has replied, arguing that ‘Smilansky has not shown that compatibilism cannot resist prepunishment. Prepunishment is so bizarre that it can be resisted by just about anybody’. I would like to examine his challenging arguments.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1093/analys/68.3.254
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
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 26,178
Through your library
References found in this work BETA
The Time to Punish.Saul Smilansky - 1994 - Analysis 54 (1):50 - 53.
Time and Punishment.Christopher New - 1992 - Analysis 52 (1):35 - 40.

View all 7 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2009-01-28

Total downloads

53 ( #96,252 of 2,153,584 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

2 ( #279,963 of 2,153,584 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.

Other forums