Retributivism Vs Utilitarian Theory - 1730 Words

The concept of morality and moral â€Å"rules and laws† has as its corollary, the concept of â€Å"rule-breaking† or acting immorally. A common response to immoral behavior is punishments, which leads me to ask the question: how is punishment justified? In his article â€Å"The Classic Debate†, American legal philosopher Joel Feinberg lays out the main points of discourse between the two major theories of justified punishment, which I will deconstruct. Feinberg asserts that there are two main theories used to justify punishment: Retributivism and Utilitarianism. These two theories supposedly oppose each other such that they are mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive (Feinberg). The latter of these theories, Utilitarianism, is the main concern of this†¦show more content†¦The second thesis of pure moralistic retributivism, that moral guilt is a sufficient condition for punishment, is far more contentious (Feinber 647). One of the common counterargument s to this point which Feinberg notes is similar to the old addage â€Å"two wrongs don’t make a right†. If punishment is justified irrespective of future consequences, and it is assumed that the chosen punishment (i.e. prison time, fine) isn’t itself a good, than how can this negative action be justified if it doesn’t necessarily bring about some goodness? Retributivists often respond by using the example of sadness as a response to suffering. Neither sadness nor suffering are inherently good, but sadness in response to someone else’s suffering is uniquely appropriate (Feinberg 647). In the same way that sadness is the appropriate response to suffering or teachers grade is the appropriate response to a students performance on a test, punishment is the appropriate response to moral guilt on the basis of justice. The concept of â€Å"justice†, the assignment of action on the basis of desert alone, will become imporant later. Another critique r aised by Feinberg relates to the third thesis of pure moralistic retributivism: that punishment must be proportionate to the moral gravity of the offense. This thesis implies a number consequences which are problematic. Firstly, ifShow MoreRelatedCapital Punishment : Deontology Vs. Consequentialism1165 Words   |  5 Pages Capital Punishment: Deontology vs. consequentialism Subject: Analyze the deontological and consequentialist arguments on both sides of the issue of capital punishment in Gregg v Georgia. In this paper I will present the moral arguments of deontology and consequentialism used to determine whether or not using the death penalty was in fact constitutional. I will present both sides of the arguments and present them in the context of this trial and of similar situations where the arguments couldRead MoreTorts study notes Essay17110 Words   |  69 Pagesï » ¿ 75 Tex. L. Rev. 1801 Texas Law Review June, 1997 W. Page Keeton Symposium on Tort Law MIXED THEORIES OF TORT LAW: AFFIRMING BOTH DETERRENCE AND CORRECTIVE JUSTICE Gary T. Schwartza Copyright (c) 1997 Texas Law Review Association; Gary T. Schwartz Introduction Currently there are two major camps of tort scholars. One understands tort liability as an instrument aimed largely at the goal of deterrence, commonly explained within the framework of economics. The other looks at tort law as