Punishment Moralism
Abstract In this paper, I try to reconcile the vulgar (normative) definition of punishment with the positivistic (purely descriptive) definition that separates the ethics of punishment from its definition—punishment positivism. I will argue that although the vulgar definition has critical issues, this does not mean that we should stop using normative concepts in the definition of punishment. I will attempt this reconciliation by considering one of the prime arguments in favour of punishment positivism—namely, definitional stop—and show why it doesn't work. I will proceed by presenting a functional argument in favour of what I call punishment moralism: the idea that punishment should be considered as a response to perceived wrongdoing. This definition, while using normative concepts, still remains descriptive. In this way, I hope to be able to solve the problem of both views by combining their insights.
Authors
- Shervin MirzaeiGhazi (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1105-7638)
Institutions
- Lund University (SE)
Publication Details
- Journal
- Ratio Juris
- Published
- 2024-08-13
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1111/raju.12416
- Primary Topic
- Free Will and Agency
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 0.00