Is Kant a retributivist?

History of Political Thought 17 (1):60-78 (1996)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Retributivists are often thought to give 'deontological' theories of punishment, arguing that we should punish not for the beneficial consequences of doing so such as deterrence or incapacitation, but purely because justice demands it. Kant is often regarded as the paradigmatic retributivist. In some passages Kant does appear to give a deontological theory of punishment. For example, Kant insists that on an island where all the people were to leave the next day, forever dissolving and dispersing the community, the last murderer in jail would have to have his execution carried out before the diaspora--justice demands it. In other passages, however, Kant defends punishment by appealing to its beneficial consequences. For example, after supposing that one man on a life raft pushes the other off to save his own life, Kant says that the former man should not be legally punished "because that punishment would have to be death, and it would be an absurd law that threatened death to one who refuses to die voluntarily in a dangerous situation." In this passage Kant's reasoning is that state laws, by threatening us with sanctions, are intended to prevent us from violating rights--the point of these laws is to deter. A law that imposes a punishment that could not deter is an absurd law. I argue that while Kant rejects consequentialism in thinking about moral actions, he distinguishes law and morality, and in the sphere of law, an action we take is to be justified by appealing to the good it yields. The point of legal punishment is to deter violations of rights and protect us from a state of nature in which no one's freedom is assured. Kant's theory of legal (as opposed to moral) punishment is not deontological. Nevertheless we can characterize his consequentialist theory of legal punishment as retributive in some sense. The paper then considers how the passages about punishment in which Kant invokes consequentialist thinking can be reconciled with other passages where he insists on punishment regardless of the consequences.

Links

PhilArchive

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-11-03

Downloads
1,746 (#5,380)

6 months
480 (#3,209)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Mark Tunick
Florida Atlantic University

References found in this work

Two concepts of rules.John Rawls - 1955 - Philosophical Review 64 (1):3-32.
The Expressive Function of Punishment.Joel Feinberg - 1965 - The Monist 49 (3):397-423.
Some thoughts about retributivism.David Dolinko - 1991 - Ethics 101 (3):537-559.
Two concepts of rules.John Rawls & Andrei Korbut - 2013 - Russian Sociological Review 12 (2):16-40.
On the old saw: that may be right in theory but it won't work in practice.Immanuel Kant - 1974 - Philadelphia,: University of Pennsylvania Press.

View all 7 references / Add more references