Pereboom on Punishment: Funishment, Innocence, Motivation, and Other Difficulties

Abstract

In Free Will, Agency, and Meaning in Life, Derk Pereboom proposes an optimistic model of life that follows on the rejection of both libertarian and compatibilist beliefs in free will, moral responsibility, and desert. I criticize his views, focusing on punishment. Pereboom responds to my earlier argument that hard determinism must seek to revise the practice of punishment in the direction of funishment, whereby the incarcerated are very generously compensated for the deprivations of incarceration. I claimed that funishment is a practical reductio: of hard determinism. Pereboom replies, but I claim that he misses a key component of my reductio, the idea that moving in the direction of funishment will considerably weaken the deterrence of potential criminals so that hard determinism becomes self-defeating in practice. Beyond the challenge of funishment, I raise various other difficulties with Pereboom’s model, concerning its deeply unintuitive implications, the harm it does to the motivation of potential criminals, its weakness in resisting utilitarian-like dangers, and more. Our conclusions should lead to a re-evaluation of the compatibilist interpretation of moral life, as a richer, more plausible, and safer interpretation than hard determinism. This needs to be combined with a true hard determinist acknowledgment of the deep injustice and tragedy involved in punishment in light of the absence of libertarian free will. Such a complex view will come closer to doing justice to notions of justice, morality, and decency.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Hart, H.L.A. (1970). Punishment and Responsibility. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Lemos, John (unpublished). Moral Concern about Responsibility Denial and the Quarantine of Violent Criminals.

  3. Levy, Neil (2012). Skepticism and sanction, Law and Philosophy 31: 477–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Morris, Herbert (1976). “Persons and Punishment,” On Guilt and Innocence. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Murphy, Jeffrie G. (1973). Criminal Punishment and Psychiatric Fallacies, in Jeffrie G. Murphy, ed. Punishment and Rehabilitation. Belmont: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Pereboom, Derk (2001). Living without Free Will. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. Pereboom, Derk (2014). Free Will, Agency and Meaning in Life. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  8. Smilansky, Saul (1990). Utilitarianism and the ‘Punishment’ of the Innocent: The General Problem, Analysis 50: 256–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Smilansky, Saul (1996). Responsibility and Desert: Defending the Connection, Mind 105: 157–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Smilansky, Saul (2000). Free Will and Illusion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Smilansky, Saul (2001). Free Will: From Nature to Illusion, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 101: 71–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Smilansky, Saul (2005). Free Will and Respect for Persons, Midwest Studies in Philosophy 29: 248–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Smilansky, Saul (2011). Hard Determinism and Punishment: A Practical Reductio, Law and Philosophy 30(3): 353–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Sommers, Tamler (2012). Relative Justice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  15. Vargas, Manuel (2005). The Revisionist’s Guide to Moral Responsibility, Philosophical Studies 125(3): 399–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Vargas, Manuel (2013). Building Better Beings. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  17. Waller, Bruce (2011). Against Moral Responsibility. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Massimo Renzo for the invitation to participate in this symposium on Derek Pereboom’s new book, and for helpful comments on my paper.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Saul Smilansky.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Smilansky, S. Pereboom on Punishment: Funishment, Innocence, Motivation, and Other Difficulties. Criminal Law, Philosophy 11, 591–603 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-016-9396-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Pereboom
  • Smilansky
  • Free will
  • Moral responsibility
  • Desert
  • Punishment
  • Funishment
  • Innocence
  • Motivation