Laird
Member
In another thread, I revealed my view that retributive justice is unsupportable rationally. I can understand it from an emotional perspective: we want to lash out and hurt those who have hurt us; it feels like some kind of "justice" that they experience what they dealt out. But outside of these emotions, I can't see how retributive justice can be justified. Does anybody have an argument for it that they think is cogent or at least sound, or that they think I might accept as cogent or at least sound?
More specifically, I'm looking for an argument of this form:
P1. [Fill in premise 1]
P2. [Fill in premise 2]
...
Pn. [Fill in premise n]
C. Therefore, those who commit evil acts ought to be punished retributively for having committed those acts, regardless of any additional consequentialist reasons to punish them, such as deterrence.
More specifically, I'm looking for an argument of this form:
P1. [Fill in premise 1]
P2. [Fill in premise 2]
...
Pn. [Fill in premise n]
C. Therefore, those who commit evil acts ought to be punished retributively for having committed those acts, regardless of any additional consequentialist reasons to punish them, such as deterrence.