Duties, Desert, and the Justification of Punishment
- 242 Downloads
In this essay, I assess what I call the “Duty View,” subtly articulated and defended by Victor Tadros in Wrongs and Crimes (Oxford University Press, 2016). According to the Duty View, wrongdoers incur enforceable duties, including the duty to be punished in some circumstances, in virtue of their wrongdoing; therefore, punishment can be justified simply on the ground that wrongdoers’ duties are being legitimately enforced. I argue that, while wrongdoers do incur important duties, these are not necessarily fulfilled by providing protection against future offenses, and I offer a comparative evaluation of the Duty View and an alternative approach, which I call the “Desert Plus View.” The Desert Plus View shares some of the key commitments of the Duty View, such as the rejection of the intrinsic goodness of wrongdoers getting what they deserve. More positively, however, according to the Desert Plus View, the fact that people are deserving can, together with certain additional conditions, such as the need for protection of its citizens, provide a reason for the state to give them what they deserve.
KeywordsPunishment Enforceable duty Desert Wrongdoing Responsibility
Many thanks to Derk Pereboom, Massimo Renzo, and Samuel Rickless for very helpful comments on previous versions of this essay.
- Arneson, Richard. (2006). “Just Warfare Theory and Noncombatant Immunity,” Cornell International Law Journal 39(3): 663–688.Google Scholar
- Arneson, Richard. (2017). “Resolving the Responsibility Dilemma,” in The Ethics of War: Essays, edited by Saba Bazargan-Forward and Samuel C. Rickless, pp. 67–93 (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
- Brink, David O., and Dana Kay Nelkin. (2013). “Fairness and the Architecture of Responsibility,” in Oxford Studies in Agency and Responsibility, Volume 1, edited by David O. Brink, pp. 284–313 (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
- Feinberg, Joel. (1970). “Sua Culpa,” in his Doing and Deserving: Essays in the Theory of Responsibility, pp. 187–221 (Princeton: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
- Haji, Ishtiyaque. (2009). Incompatibilism’s Allure: Principal Arguments for Incompatibilism (Peterborough: Broadview Press).Google Scholar
- Hume, David. (1739/1978). An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
- Mele, Alfred R. (1995). Autonomous Agents: From Self-Control to Autonomy (New York: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
- Nelkin, Dana Kay. (forthcoming). “Guilt, Grief, and the Good,” Social and Political Philosophy.Google Scholar
- Pereboom, Derk. (forthcoming). “Incapacitation, Reintegration, and Limited General Deterrence,” Neuroethics. Google Scholar
- Wallace, R. Jay. (1994). Responsibility and the Moral Sentiments (Cambridge: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar