Criminal Law and Philosophy

, Volume 5, Issue 3, pp 361–376 | Cite as

Moore’s Moral Facts and the Gap in the Retributive Theory

Original Paper

Abstract

The purely retributive moral justification of punishment has a gap at its centre. It fails to explain why the offender should not be protected from punishment by the intuitively powerful moral idea that afflicting another person (other than to avoid a greater harm) is always wrong. Attempts to close the gap have taken several different forms, and only one is discussed in this paper. This is the attempt to push aside the ‘protecting’ intuition, using some more powerful intuition specially invoked by the situations to which criminal justice is addressed. In one aspect of his complex defence of pure retributivism, Michael S. Moore attempts to show that the emotions of well-adjusted persons provide evidence of moral facts which justify the affliction of culpable wrongdoers in retribution for their wrongdoing. In particular, he appeals to the evidential significance of emotions aroused by especially heinous crimes, including the punishment-seeking guilt of the offender who truly confronts the reality of his immoral act. The paper argues that Moore fails to vindicate this appeal to moral realism, and thus to show that intrinsic personal moral desert (as distinct from ‘desert’ in a more restricted sense, relative to morally justified institutions) is a necessary and sufficient basis for punishment. Other theories of the role of emotions in morality are as defensible as Moore’s, while the compelling emotions to which he appeals to clinch his argument can be convincingly situated within a non-retributivist framework, especially when the distinction between the intuitions of the lawless world, and those of the world of law, is recognised.

Keywords

Justification of punishment Retributive theory Moral significance of emotions Desert Resentment Guilt 

References

  1. Butler, J. (1967). Upon resentment. Fifteen sermons (W. R. Matthews (Ed.)). (pp. 120–132). London: G. Bell & Sons.Google Scholar
  2. Duff, R. A. (1996). Penal communications: Recent work in the philosophy of punishment. Crime and Justice, 20, 1–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Hart, H. L. A. (1968). Punishment and responsibility (pp. 1–27). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Hume, D. (1998). Concerning moral sentiment. An enquiry concerning the principles of morals (T. L. Beauchamp (Ed.)). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Hutcheson, F. (2002). An essay on the nature and conduct of the passions and affections, with illustrations on the moral sense (A. Garrett (Ed.)). Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, Inc.Google Scholar
  6. Kahan, D. M., & Nussbaum, M. C. (1996). Two conceptions of emotion in criminal law. Columbia Law Review, 96, 270–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kant, I. (1997). Lectures on ethics (P. Heath, & J. B. Schneewind (Eds.), P. Heath, Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Kleinig, J. (1973). Punishment and desert. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  9. Locke, J. (1988). Second treatise of government (P. Laslett (Ed.)). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Matravers, M. (2000). Justice and punishment: The rationale of coercion. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Moore, M. S. (1982). Moral reality. Wisconsin Law Review, 1061.Google Scholar
  12. Moore, M. S. (1997). Placing blame. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  13. Murphy, J., & Hampton, J. (1988). Forgiveness and mercy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rawls, J. (2001). Two concepts of rules. Collected papers (S. Freeman (Ed.)). (pp. 20–47). Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Schopenhauer, A. (1960). Essay on the freedom of the will ( K. Kolenda, Trans.). Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
  16. Schopenhauer, A. (1995). On the basis of morality (E. F. J. Payne Trans.). Oxford: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
  17. Searle, J. R. (1983). Intentionality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Shaftesbury (Antony Ashley Cooper, Earl of) (2001). An inquiry concerning virtue and merit. Characteristicks of men, manners, opinions, times (D. Den Uyl (Ed.)). vol. 2 (pp. 3–44). Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, Inc.Google Scholar
  19. Smith, A. (1982). The theory of moral sentiments (D. D. Raphael & A. L. Macfie (Eds.)). Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, Inc.Google Scholar
  20. Ten, C. L. (1987). Crime, guilt and punishment. Oxford University Press: New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Education and Social ScienceUniversity of Central LancashirePrestonUK

Personalised recommendations