Advertisement

Philosophical Studies

, Volume 162, Issue 2, pp 143–163 | Cite as

Persons, punishment, and free will skepticism

  • Benjamin VilhauerEmail author
Article

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to provide a justification of punishment which can be endorsed by free will skeptics, and which can also be defended against the “using persons as mere means” objection. Free will skeptics must reject retributivism, that is, the view that punishment is just because criminals deserve to suffer based on their actions. Retributivists often claim that theirs is the only justification on which punishment is constrained by desert, and suppose that non-retributive justifications must therefore endorse treating the people punished as mere means to social ends. Retributivists typically presuppose a monolithic conception of desert: they assume that action-based desert is the only kind of desert. But there are also personhood-based desert claims, that is, desert claims which depend not on facts about our actions, but instead on the more abstract fact that we are persons. Since personhood-based desert claims do not depend on facts about our actions, they do not depend on moral responsibility, so free will skeptics can appeal to them just as well as retributivists. What people deserve based on the mere fact of their personhood is to be treated as they would rationally consent to be treated if all they had in view was the mere fact of their personhood. We can work out the implications of this view for punishment by developing a “hypothetical consent” justification in which we select principles of punishment in the Rawlsian original position, so long as we are careful not to smuggle in the retributivist assumption that it is under our control whether we end up as criminals or as law-abiding citizens once we raise the veil of ignorance.

Keywords

Free will Personhood Desert Retribution Retributivism Rawls Free will skepticism Moral responsibility Punishment Due process Deterrence Original position 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Saul Smilansky, Derk Pereboom, Joe Keim Campbell, Jeff Murphy, Erin Kelly, Kadri Vihvelin, Chad Flanders, Zac Cogley, and the editor and reviewer at Philosophical Studies for helpful comments on this paper or the ideas it presents. This research was supported in part by a summer grant from the Research Center for the Humanities and Social Sciences at William Paterson University of New Jersey.

References

  1. Clark, M. (2004). A non-retributive Kantian approach to punishment. Ratio, 17(1), 12–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Feldman, F. (1995). Desert: Reconsideration of some received wisdom. Mind, 104(413), 63–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Frankfurt, H. (1971). Freedom of the will and the concept of a person. Journal of Philosophy, 68(1), 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hart, H. L. A. (1968). Punishment and responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Kant, I. (1996). The metaphysics of morals. Tr. M. Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Kelly, E. (2002). Doing without desert. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 83(2), 180–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kelly, E. (2009). Criminal justice without retribution. Journal of Philosophy, 106(8), 440–462.Google Scholar
  8. Mills, E. (2004). Scheffler on Rawls, justice, and desert. Law and Philosophy, 23(3), 261–272.Google Scholar
  9. Moriarity, J. (2003). Against the asymmetry of desert. Noûs, 37(3), 518–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Murphy, J. (1973). Marxism and retribution. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 2(3), 217–243.Google Scholar
  11. O’Neill, O. (1989). Constructions of reason: Explorations of Kant’s practical philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Primoratz, I. (1999). Justifying legal punishment (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
  13. Rachels, J. (1978). What people deserve. In J. Arthur & W. H. Shaw (Eds.), Justice and economic distribution. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  14. Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice (Revised Edition). Cambridge, MA: Harvard.Google Scholar
  15. Sadurski, W. (1985). Giving desert its due: Social justice and legal theory. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
  16. Scanlon, T. (1998). What we owe to each other. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.Google Scholar
  17. Scheffler, S. (2000). Justice and desert in liberal theory. California Law Review, 88(3), 991–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Scheid, D. (1983). Kant’s retributivism. Ethics, 93(2), 262–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Schlick, M. (1939). Problems of ethics. Tr. D. Rynin. New York: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  20. Smart, J. J. C. (1961). Free-will, praise, and blame. Mind, 70(279), 291–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Smart, J. J. C. (1973). An outline of a system of utilitarian ethics. In J. J. C. Smart & B. Williams (Eds.), Utilitarianism: For and against (pp. 69–72). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Smilansky, S. (1990). Utilitarianism and the ‘punishment’ of the innocent: The general problem. Analysis, 50(4), 256–261.Google Scholar
  23. Smilansky, S. (1996). Responsibility and desert: Defending the connection. Mind, 105(417), 157–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Smilansky, S. (2000). Free will and illusion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Smilansky, S. (2006). Control, desert, and the difference between distributive and retributive justice. Philosophical Studies, 131(3), 511–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sterba, J. (1977). Retributive justice. Political Theory, 5(3), 349–362.Google Scholar
  27. Ten, C. L. (1987). Crime, guilt and punishment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Vilhauer, B. (2004). Can we interpret Kant as a compatibilist about determinism and moral responsibility? The British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 12(4), 719–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vilhauer, B. (2009a). Free will skepticism and personhood as a desert base. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 39(3), 489–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Vilhauer, B. (2009b). Free will and reasonable doubt. American Philosophical Quarterly, 46(2), 131–140.Google Scholar
  31. Vilhauer, B. (2010). The scope of responsibility in Kant’s theory of free will. The British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 18(1), 45–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyWilliam Paterson University of New JerseyWayneUSA

Personalised recommendations