Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The philosophical justification for punishment
The philosophical justification for punishment
The philosophical justification for punishment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The philosophical justification for punishment
Punishment belongs to one of numerous controversial philosophical issues since different thinkers do not share some single opinion on this problem. Since punishment always supposes restricting freedom of an individual or even depriving him or her of certain rights (including even the right to life), it is not surprising that philosophical views on the concept of punishment are diverse. Many famous philosophers promoted respect for human freedom and, thus, could not help but notice that any punishment can be carried out even against the offender's will. Therefore, there was an obvious necessity to resolve the conflict between the punishment and human freedom. Although, any punishment harms human rights and interests and, as a result, cannot be regarded as a normal and desirable form of interaction between people, punishment is essential when people guiltily commit acts that harm society or endanger rights of other people because that is the only way to ensure the stability of society.
Certainly, no one can deny that any punishment is a serious restriction of human freedom and in such a way contradicts the principles, according to which society must protect freedom. For example, Kant believed that all human choices and actions are to be consistent with certain underlying principles (maxims), noticing that only such a principle that could serve as a universal law should be followed (Kant). Consequently, only actions that do not harm people are morally acceptable since society would not be able to function properly if, for example, sending people to prison became a universal law. While Mill was not a strong supporter of strict underlying moral principles offered by Kant, he also believed in the necessity to establish such moral rul...
... middle of paper ...
...acts still recognized the necessity of punishment. Their observations do not seem surprising, considering that there still is no alternative to punishment. Refusal from punishment only will encourage criminals to continue committing wrongdoings, resulting in violation of human rights and basic principles declared by many ethical principles, including utilitarianism, Kantian ethics or the “Golden Rule”, for example. However, punishment only should applied towards people who committed some wrongdoing and are guilty because otherwise punishment will stop being “ethical”.
Works Cited
Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Trans. Thomas Kingsmill Abbot. gutenberg.org, Web. 18 Mar. 2014.
Mill, John Stuart. “On Liberty.” Harvard Classics, vol. 25. P. F. Collier & Son, 1909. The University of Adelaide, 7 Mar. 2014. Web. 18 Mar. 2014.
Foner, Eric. Give Me Liberty!: An American History. Fourth ed. Vol. 1. New York: W.W. Norton, 2012. 247-316. Print.
...places a person’s dignity and honor before life, while Mill places society’s happiness before all else. For Kant, capital punishment serves to preserve the dignity of an individual, while for Mill, capital punishment is used to protect society’s overall happiness. If it were up to you, which side would you take on capital punishment? Kant and Mill raise good questions and points in their perspective arguments, but there are too many contradictions for me to defend on either one of their points of views. I stand against capital punishment.
Mill, John Stuart, “On Liberty. ch. 1, 3,” from Project Gutenberg Web site: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34901, No. 01/10, Pp. 1-19, Public Domain, 2011
Emerson, Ralph W. "The American Scholar." Give Me Liberty!: An American History. Brief Third ed. Vol. One. New York: W.W. Norton, 2012. 270. Print. Voices of Freedom excerpt
Foner, E. (2008). Give me Liberty: An American History. New York, Ny: WW. Norton &
4.de Toqueville, Alexis. Eric Foner, Give Me Liberty: An American History (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2008), 358.
This paper considers the desert arguments raised to support retributivism, or retribution. Retributivism is "the application of the Principle of Desert to the special case of criminal punishment." Russ Shafer-Landau and James Rachels offer very different perspectives on moral desert which ground their differing views on the appropriate response to wrongdoing. In "The Failure of Retributivism," Shafer-Landau contends that retributivism fails to function as a comprehensive theoretical foundation for the legal use of punishment. In contrast, in his article "Punishment and Desert," Rachels uses the four principles of guilt, equal treatment, proportionality and excuses to illustrate the superiority of retribution as the basis for the justice system over two alternatives: deterrence and rehabilitation. Their philosophical treatment of the term leads to divergence on the justification of legal punishment. Ultimately, Rachels offers a more compelling view of desert than Shafer-Landau and, subsequently, better justifies his endorsement of a retributive justice system.
27.) Foner, Eric. Give Me Liberty! An American History. 4th ed. (W.W. Norton, 2012), 815.
Locke, John (edited by Peardon, Thomas, P.) The Second Treatise of Government, New York, Bobbs-Merrill, 1952 [1690], Ch. 5.
Herbert Morris and Jean Hampton both view punishment as important to a healthy society. However, their views on what kind of role does punishment plays in a healthy society are vastly different. Morris believes that when one commits a crime they “owe a debt to the society and the person they wronged” and, therefore the punishment of that person is retributive, and a right for those who committed this wrong (270). Hampton, on the other hand, believes that punishment is a good for those who have strayed in the path of being morally right. Out of the two views presented, I believe that Hampton view is more plausible, and rightly places punishment as a constructive good that is better suited for society than Morris’s view.
...Mill does not implicitly trust or distrust man and therefore does not explicitly limit freedom, in fact he does define freedom in very liberal terms, however he does leave the potential for unlimited intervention into the personal freedoms of the individual by the state. This nullifies any freedoms or rights individuals are said to have because they subject to the whims and fancy of the state. All three beliefs regarding the nature of man and the purpose of the state are bound to their respective views regarding freedom, because one position perpetuates and demands a conclusion regarding another.
My thoughts and feelings on Mill vary, but I’d like to share my negative opinion towards the principle and hope to put it in a different perspective. The harm principle was published in Mill’s work, Of Liberty, in 1859. He states, “That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant (978).” This means that government is not able to control peoples’ actions unless they are causing harm to other individuals.
Crimes are not ‘given’ or ‘natural’ categories to which societies simply respond. The composition of such categories change from various places and times, and is the output of social norms and conventions. Also, crime is not the prohibitions made for the purpose of rational social defence. Instead, Durkheim argues that crimes are those acts which seriously violate a society’s conscience collective. They are essentially violations of the fundamental moral code which society holds sacred, and they provoke punishment for this reason. It is because of these criminal acts which violate the sacred norms of the conscience collective, that they produce a punitive reaction. (Ibid)
Punishing the unlawful, undesirable and deviant members of society is an aspect of criminal justice that has experienced a variety of transformations throughout history. Although the concept of retribution has remained a constant (the idea that the law breaker must somehow pay his/her debt to society), the methods used to enforce and achieve that retribution has changed a great deal. The growth and development of society, along with an underlying, perpetual fear of crime, are heavily linked to the use of vastly different forms of punishment that have ranged from public executions, forced labor, penal welfare and popular punitivism over the course of only a few hundred years. Crime constructs us as a society whilst society, simultaneously determines what is criminal. Since society is always changing, how we see crime and criminal behavior is changing, thus the way in which we punish those criminal behaviors changes.
In this instance, Mill would agree with the court ruling because, like his views concerning free exercise of will, government restriction and majority rule, both the court ruling and Mill’s ideals are concerned for the best interests of the individual rather than for the greater good of society. Complete free exercise will inhibit individual and societal freedom. According to Mill, one may act as one chooses unless one is inflicting harm on others. He argues that one is free to behave “according to his own inclination and judgment in things which concern himself” as long as “he refrains from molesting” (64). The problem arises in the freedom allowed to the individual performing the potentially dangerous act.