Results for 'retribution'

768 found
Order:
  1.  35
    The Retribution-Gap and Responsibility-Loci Related to Robots and Automated Technologies: A Reply to Nyholm.Roos de Jong - 2020 - Science and Engineering Ethics 26 (2):727-735.
    Automated technologies and robots make decisions that cannot always be fully controlled or predicted. In addition to that, they cannot respond to punishment and blame in the ways humans do. Therefore, when automated cars harm or kill people, for example, this gives rise to concerns about responsibility-gaps and retribution-gaps. According to Sven Nyholm, however, automated cars do not pose a challenge on human responsibility, as long as humans can control them and update them. He argues that the agency exercised (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  2. Debunking (the) Retribution (Gap).Steven R. Kraaijeveld - 2019 - Science and Engineering Ethics:1-14.
    Robotization is an increasingly pervasive feature of our lives. Robots with high degrees of autonomy may cause harm, yet in sufciently complex systems neither the robots nor the human developers may be candidates for moral blame. John Danaher has recently argued that this may lead to a retribution gap, where the human desire for retribution faces a lack of appropriate subjects for retributive blame. The potential social and moral implications of a retribution gap are considerable. I argue (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  3. Robots, Law and the Retribution Gap.John Danaher - 2016 - Ethics and Information Technology 18 (4):299–309.
    We are living through an era of increased robotisation. Some authors have already begun to explore the impact of this robotisation on legal rules and practice. In doing so, many highlight potential liability gaps that might arise through robot misbehaviour. Although these gaps are interesting and socially significant, they do not exhaust the possible gaps that might be created by increased robotisation. In this article, I make the case for one of those alternative gaps: the retribution gap. This gap (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   33 citations  
  4. Retribution and the Theory of Punishment.Hugo Adam Bedau - 1978 - Journal of Philosophy 75 (11):601-620.
    This paper examines hart's model (1967) of the retributive theory. section i criticizes the model for not answering all the main questions to which a theory of punishment should be addressed, as hart alleges it does. section ii criticizes the model for its omission of the concept of desert. section iii criticizes attempts by card (1973) and by von hirsch (1976) to provide new ways of proportioning punitive severity to criminal injury. section iv discusses the idea of retribution in (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  5. A Retributive Argument Against Punishment.Greg Roebuck & David Wood - 2011 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 5 (1):73-86.
    This paper proposes a retributive argument against punishment, where punishment is understood as going beyond condemnation or censure, and requiring hard treatment. The argument sets out to show that punishment cannot be justified. The argument does not target any particular attempts to justify punishment, retributive or otherwise. Clearly, however, if it succeeds, all such attempts fail. No argument for punishment is immune from the argument against punishment proposed here. The argument does not purport to be an argument only against retributive (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  6. Justice without Retribution: An Epistemic Argument against Retributive Criminal Punishment.Gregg D. Caruso - 2020 - Neuroethics 13 (1):13-28.
    Within the United States, the most prominent justification for criminal punishment is retributivism. This retributivist justification for punishment maintains that punishment of a wrongdoer is justified for the reason that she deserves something bad to happen to her just because she has knowingly done wrong—this could include pain, deprivation, or death. For the retributivist, it is the basic desert attached to the criminal’s immoral action alone that provides the justification for punishment. This means that the retributivist position is not reducible (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  7.  89
    The Varieties of Retributive Experience.Christopher Bennett - 2002 - Philosophical Quarterly 52 (207):145-163.
    Retribution is often dismissed as augmenting the initial harm done, rather than ameliorating it. This criticism rests on a crude view of retribution. In our actual practice in informal situations and in the workings of the reactive (properly called 'retributive') sentiments, retribution is true to the gravity of wrongdoing, but does aim to ameliorate it. Through wrongdoing, offenders become alienated from the moral community: their actions place their commitment to its core values in doubt. We recognize this (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   57 citations  
  8. Terrorism, Retribution, and Collective Responsibility.Mark R. Reiff - 2008 - Social Theory and Practice 34 (2):209-242.
    Terrorism is commonly viewed as a form of war, and as a form of war, the morality of terrorism seems to turn on the usual arguments regarding the furtherance of political objectives through coercive means. The terrorist argues that his options for armed struggle are limited, and that the use of force against civilians is the only way he can advance his cause. But this argument is subject to a powerful response. There is the argument from consequences, which asserts that (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  9. The Retributive Emotions: Passions and Pains of Punishment.Jules Holroyd - 2010 - Philosophical Papers 39 (3):343-371.
    It is not usually morally permissible to desire the suffering of another person, or to act so as to satisfy this desire; that is, to act with the aim of bringing about suffering. If the retributive emotions, and the retributive responses of which they are a part, are morally permitted or even required, we will need to see what is distinctive about them. One line of argument in this paper is for the conclusion that a retributive desire for the suffering (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  10. Retributive Karma and the Problem of Blaming the Victim.Mikel Burley - 2013 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 74 (2):149-165.
    A defining feature of retributive conceptions of karma is their regarding of suffering or misfortune as consequent upon sins committed in previous lives. Some critical non-believers in karma take offence at this view, considering it to involve unjustly blaming the victim. Defenders of the view demur, and argue that a belief in retributive karma in fact provides a motivation for benevolent action. This article elucidates the debate, showing that its depth is such that it is best characterized as a disagreement (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  11. Understanding Retribution.Roger Wertheimer - 1983 - Criminal Justice Ethics 2 (2):19-38.
    Critical analysis of wide variety of conceptions and justifications of retribution and punishment. Emphasis is on pivotal role of condemnation.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  12. The Evolution of Retribution: Intuitions Undermined.Isaac Wiegman - 2017 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 98 (2):490-510.
    Recent empirical work suggests that emotions are responsible for anti-consequentialist intuitions. For instance, anger places value on actions of revenge and retribution, value not derived from the consequences of these actions. As a result, it contributes to the development of retributive intuitions. I argue that if anger evolved to produce these retributive intuitions because of their biological consequences, then these intuitions are not a good indicator that punishment has value apart from its consequences. This severs the evidential connection between (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  13.  98
    Beyond Retribution.Thom Brooks - 2014 - Think 13 (38):47-50.
    Retribution enjoys an unwarranted appeal from the public and its politicians. This is because it is impractical and perhaps even incoherent. This does not mean that we should reject the importance of morality for criminal justice nor should we reject the link between desert and proportionality. Nevertheless, we can reject the way retribution has understood these ideas in defense of a more plausible and compelling alternative.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  14. Between Retribution and Restoration: Justice and the TRC.J. Allen - 2001 - South African Journal of Philosophy 20 (2):1-20.
    How may a society, in a morally defensible way, confront a past of injustice and suffering, and seek to break the spell of violence and disregard for human life? I begin by demonstrating the relevance of this question to the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and I draw attention to André du Toit’s longstanding interest in ways in which truth commissions may function to consolidate political change. In the second section of the article, I argue that truth commissions should (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  15.  90
    Forgiveness and Retribution: Responding to Wrongdoing.Margaret R. Holmgren - 2012 - Cambridge University Press.
    Machine generated contents note: 1. Introduction and overview; 2. The nature of forgiveness and resentment; 3. The moral analysis of the attitudes of forgiveness and resentment defined; 4. The moral analysis of the attitudes of self-forgiveness and self-condemnation; 5. Philosophical underpinnings of the basic attitudes: forgiveness, resentment, and the nature of persons; 6. Moral theory: justice and desert; 7. The public response to wrongdoing; 8. Restorative justice: the public response to wrongdoing and the process of addressing the wrong.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   16 citations  
  16. Emotions, Retribution, and Punishment.Christopher Ciocchetti - 2009 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 26 (2):160-173.
    I examine emotional reactions to wrongdoing to determine whether they offer support for retributivism. It is often thought that victims desire to see their victimizer suffer and that this reaction offers support for retributivism. After rejecting several attempts to use different theories of emotion and different approaches to using emotions to justify retributivism, I find that, assuming a cognitive theory of emotion is correct, emotions can be used as heuristic guides much as suggested by Michael Moore. Applying this method to (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  17.  21
    Judging the Goring Ox: Retribution Directed Toward Animals.Geoffrey P. Goodwin & Adam Benforado - 2015 - Cognitive Science 39 (3):619-646.
    Prior research on the psychology of retribution is complicated by the difficulty of separating retributive and general deterrence motives when studying human offenders . We isolate retribution by investigating judgments about punishing animals, which allows us to remove general deterrence from consideration. Studies 2 and 3 document a “victim identity” effect, such that the greater the perceived loss from a violent animal attack, the greater the belief that the culprit deserves to be killed. Study 3 documents a “targeted (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  18.  25
    Retribution, Justice, and Therapy.Jeffrie G. Murphy - 1981 - Philosophical Review 90 (3):484-489.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  19.  3
    Forgiveness and Retribution: Responding to Wrongdoing.Margaret R. Holmgren - 2012 - Cambridge University Press.
    Forgiveness and Retribution: Responding to Wrongdoing argues that ultimately, forgiveness is always the appropriate response to wrongdoing. In recent decades, many philosophers have claimed that unless certain conditions are met, we should resent those who have wronged us personally and that criminal offenders deserve to be punished. Conversely, Margaret Holmgren posits that we should forgive those who have ill-treated us, but only after working through a process of addressing the wrong. Holmgren then reflects on the kinds of laws and (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  20. Divine Retribution: A Defence.Oliver D. Crisp - 2003 - Sophia 42 (2):35-52.
    The concept of divine justice has been the subject of considerable scrutiny in recent philosophical theology, as it bears upon the notion of punishment with respect to the doctrine of eternal damnation. In this essay, I set out a version of the traditional retributive view of divine punishment and defend it against one of the most important and influential contemporary detractors from this position, Thomas Talbott. I will show that, contrary to Talbott’s argument, punishment may satisfy divine justice, and that (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  21. Divine Retribution in Evolutionary Perspective.Isaac Wiegman - 2016 - In Wm Curtis Holtzen & Matthew Nelson Hill (eds.), In Spirit and Truth. Claremont: CST Press. pp. 181-202.
  22.  21
    Retribution, Reparation, and the Moral Claims of Communities.William Gardner - 2018 - American Journal of Bioethics 18 (10):31-33.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  23.  50
    Retributive Parsimony.Richard L. Lippke - 2009 - Res Publica 15 (4):377-395.
    Retributive approaches to the justification of legal punishment are often thought to place exacting and unattractive demands on state officials, requiring them to expend scarce public resources on apprehending and punishing all offenders strictly in accordance with their criminal ill deserts. Against this caricature of the theory, I argue that retributivists can urge parsimony in the use of punishment. After clarifying what parsimony consists in, I show how retributivists can urge reductions in the use of punishment in order to conserve (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  24. Legal Moralism and Retribution Revisited.Jeffrie G. Murphy - 2007 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 1 (1):5-20.
    This is a slightly revised text of Jeffrie G. Murphy’s Presidential Address delivered to the American Philosophical Association, Pacific Division, in March 2006. In the essay the author reconsiders two positions he had previously defended—the liberal attack on legal moralism and robust versions of the retributive theory of punishment—and now finds these positions much more vulnerable to legitimate attack than he had previously realized. In the first part of the essay, he argues that the use of Mill’s liberal harm principle (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  25.  11
    Emotions, Retribution, and Punishment.Christopher Ciocchetti - 2009 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 26 (2):160-173.
    abstract I examine emotional reactions to wrongdoing to determine whether they offer support for retributivism. It is often thought that victims desire to see their victimizer suffer and that this reaction offers support for retributivism. After rejecting several attempts to use different theories of emotion and different approaches to using emotions to justify retributivism, I find that, assuming a cognitive theory of emotion is correct, emotions can be used as heuristic guides much as suggested by Michael Moore. Applying this method (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  26. Against Retributive Justifications of the Death Penalty.Sarah Roberts-Cady - 2010 - Journal of Social Philosophy 41 (2):185-193.
    From the article's conclusion: "This article does not challenge the coherence of retributive theory nor does it challenge the consistency of a retributive theorist who supports the death penalty. I have only argued that one cannot justify the death penalty simply by establishing the claim that wrongdoers deserve punishment which fits the crime. Unless one is willing to condone all sorts of barbaric punishments, then one must appeal to additional ethical considerations to establish which equivalent (or roughly equivalent or proportional) (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  27.  63
    The Three Rs: Retribution, Revenge, and Reparation.Tamler Sommers - 2016 - Philosophia 44 (2):327-342.
    Nearly all retributive theories of punishment adopt the following model. Punishments are justified when the wrongdoers receive the punishment they deserve. A deserved punishment is one that is proportionate to the offender’s culpability. Culpability has two components: the severity of the wrong, and the offender’s blameworthiness. The broader aim of this article is to outline an alternative retributivist model that directly involves the victim in the determination of the appropriate and just punishment. The narrower aim is to show that the (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  28.  88
    Retribution and Organic Unities.Michael Clark - 2006 - Journal of Moral Philosophy 3 (3):351-358.
    Moore argued that his principle of organic unities, according to which the value of a whole is to be distinguished from the value of the sum of its parts, is consistent with a retributivist view of punishment: both crime and punishment are intrinsic evils but the combination of the crime with the punishment of its perpetrator is less bad in itself than the crime unpunished. Moore’s principle excludes any form of retributivism that regards the punishment of a guilty person as (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  29.  13
    Punishment, Retribution, Restoration.Arnold Burms & Gerbert Faure - 2016 - Tijdschrift Voor Filosofie 78 (4):851-862.
    Peter Strawson makes a crucial distinction between reactive attitudes and the objective attitude. Reactive attitudes such as gratefulness, anger and indignation imply that we take each other seriously as responsible agents. The objective attitude implies that we stop taking each other seriously. Strawson argues that the objective attitude is not merely psychologically difficult: it is inconceivable that we would systematically refrain from taking each other seriously and stop discussing with each other or blaming ourselves or others. Strawson, however, only discusses (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  30. Punishment, Retribution, and the Coercive Enforcement of Right.Allen W. Wood - 2010 - In Lara Denis (ed.), Kant's Metaphysics of Morals: A Critical Guide. Cambridge University Press.
  31.  5
    Retribution: Evil for Evil in Ethics, Law, and Literature.Marvin Henberg - 1990 - Temple University Press.
    Despite our moral misgivings, retributive canons of justice-the return of evil to evildoers-remain entrenched in law, literature, and popular moral precept. In this wide-ranging examination of retribution, Marvin Henberg argues that the persistence and pervasiveness of this concept is best understood from a perspective of evolutionary naturalism. After tracing its origins in human biology and psychology, he shows how retribution has been treated historically in such diverse cultural expressions as law codes, scriptures, drama, poetry, philosophy, and novels. Henberg (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  32.  45
    Retribution, Reciprocity, and Respect for Persons.M. Margaret Falls - 1987 - Law and Philosophy 6 (1):25 - 51.
  33.  7
    On Retributive Justice.C. P. Ruloff & Patrick Findler - 2022 - Think 21 (60):57-64.
    Hsiao has recently developed what he considers a ‘simple and straightforward’ argument for the moral permissibility of corporal punishment. In this article we argue that Hsiao's argument is seriously flawed for at least two reasons. Specifically, we argue that a key premise of Hsiao's argument is question-begging, and Hsiao's argument depends upon a pair of false underlying assumptions, namely, the assumption that children are moral agents, and the assumption that all forms of wrongdoing demand retribution.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  34.  34
    Retribution, Crime Reduction and the Justification of Punishment.David Wood - 2002 - Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 22 (2):301-321.
    The ‘dualist project’ in the philosophy of punishment is to show how retributivist and reductivist (utilitarian) considerations can be combined to provide an adequate justification of punishment. Three types of dualist theories can be distinguished—‘split‐level’, ‘integrated’ and ‘mere conjunction’. Split‐level theories (e.g. Hart, Rawls) must be rejected, as they relegate retributivist considerations to a lesser role. An attempted integrated theory is put forward, appealing to the reductivist means of deterrence. However, it cannot explain how the two types of considerations, retributivist (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  35. Beyond Retribution: A New Testament Vision for Justice, Crime, and Punishment.Christopher D. Marshall - 2001
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  36. Marxism and Retribution.Jeffrie G. Murphy - 1973 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 2 (3):217-243.
  37.  25
    A Retributive Justification for Not Punishing Bare Intentions Or: On the Moral Relevance of the 'Now-Belief'.Federico Picinali - 2013 - Law and Philosophy 32 (4):385-403.
    According to criminal law a person should not be punished for a bare intention to commit a crime. While theorists have provided consequentialist and epistemic justifications of this tenet, no convincing retributive justification thereof has yet been advanced. The present paper attempts to fill this lacuna through arguing that there is an important moral difference between a future-directed and a present-directed intention to act wrongfully. Such difference is due to the restraining influence exercised in the decisional process by the ‘now-belief’, (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  38.  7
    Between Retribution and Restoration: Justice and the TRC.Jonathan Allen - 2001 - South African Journal of Philosophy 20 (1):22-41.
    How may a society, in a morally defensible way, confront a past of injustice and suffering, and seek to break the spell of violence and disregard for human life? I begin by demonstrating the relevance of this question to the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and I draw attention to André du Toit's long- standing interest in ways in which truth commissions may function to consolidate political change. In the second section of the article, I argue that truth commissions (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  39.  28
    Retribution and Restorative Justice.Declan Roche - 2007 - In Gerry Johnstone & Daniel W. van Ness (eds.), Handbook of Restorative Justice. pp. 75--90.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  40.  72
    Justice Without Retribution: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, Stakeholder Views and Practical Implications.Farah Focquaert, Gregg Caruso, Elizabeth Shaw & Derk Pereboom - 2020 - Neuroethics 13 (1):1-3.
    Within the United States, the most prominent justification for criminal punishment is retributivism. This retributivist justification for punishment maintains that punishment of a wrongdoer is justified for the reason that she deserves something bad to happen to her just because she has knowingly done wrong—this could include pain, deprivation, or death. For the retributivist, it is the basic desert attached to the criminal’s immoral action alone that provides the justification for punishment. This means that the retributivist position is not reducible (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  41.  32
    Retribution and Incarceration.Richard L. Lippke - 2003 - Public Affairs Quarterly 17 (1):29-48.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  42.  38
    Retributive Prepunishment.Joseph Q. Adams - 2013 - Social Theory and Practice 39 (2):213-222.
    This paper argues that many of our most important theories of retributivism are unwittingly committed to the radical thesis that prepunishment—punishment before an offense—is morally permissible. From the perspective of diachronic justice on which these theories crucially depend, the timing of retribution is, ceteris paribus, irrelevant. But retributivism’s counterintuitive support does not stop there: there are conditions under which pre-offense apprehension and punishment guarantees a higher probability of justice being done. Under these conditions, the popular retributive theories I have (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  43.  54
    The Retributive Theory of Property.Terrance Tomkow - manuscript
  44.  19
    Retribution in Deuteronomy: Theology and Ethics.J. Gordon McConville - 2015 - Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology 69 (3):288-298.
    Retribution in Deuteronomy is bound up with the character of God, known from dealings in history with Israel and other nations. Retribution is applied according to a certain rightness of things, or “justice and righteousness,” rooted in the person of God, so that God’s love and compassion have the final determining word.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  45.  45
    Retributive, Restorative and Ritualistic Justice.Kimberley Brownlee - 2010 - Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 30 (2):385-397.
    Few defences of retribution in criminal justice make a plausible case for the view that punishment plays a necessary role in restoring relations between offenders, victims and the community. Even fewer defences of retribution make a plausible appeal to the interpersonal practice of apologizing as a symbolically adequate model for criminal justice. This review article considers Christopher Bennett’s engaging defence of an apology ritual in criminal justice, an account of justifiable punishment that draws from the best of retributive (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  46.  80
    A Retributive Critique of Racial Bias and Arbitrariness in Capital Punishment.Oscar Londono - 2013 - Journal of Social Philosophy 44 (1):95-105.
  47.  54
    Retributive Justice.James P. Sterba - 1977 - Political Theory 5 (3):349-362.
  48. Kantian Remorse with and Without Self-Retribution.Benjamin Vilhauer - 2022 - Kantian Review 27 (3):421-441.
    This is a semifinal draft of a forthcoming paper. Kant’s account of the pain of remorse involves a hybrid justification based on self-retribution, but constrained by forward-looking principles which say that we must channel remorse into improvement, and moderate its pain to avoid damaging our rational agency. Kant’s corpus also offers material for a revisionist but textually-grounded alternative account based on wrongdoers’ sympathy for the pain they cause. This account is based on the value of care, and has forward-looking (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  49.  2
    Reflexive Retributive Duties.Stephen Kershnar - 1997 - Jahrbuch Für Recht Und Ethik / Annual Review of Law and Ethics 5:497-516.
    The retributive duty is both held by and owed to the victim of a culpable wrongdoing. This reflexive account fits nicely with a Kantian emphasis on autonomy because the Kantian account allows us to explain how a person can have a duty to oneself. The reflexive account also fits nicely with, and is in part supported by, the notion that a culpable wrongdoer forfeits some of his rights . The waivability of the retributive duty in part explains why it is (...)
    Direct download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  50. Distributive and Retributive Desert in Rawls.Jake Greenblum - 2010 - Journal of Social Philosophy 41 (2):169-184.
    In this paper I examine John Rawls’s understanding of desert. Against Samuel Scheffler, I maintain that the reasons underlying Rawls’s rejection of the traditional view of distributive desert in A Theory of Justice also commit him to rejecting the traditional view of retributive desert. Unlike Rawls’s critics, however, I view this commitment in a positive light. I also argue that Rawls’s later work commits him to rejecting retributivism as a public justification for punishment.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
1 — 50 / 768