Limiting the Epistemic Argument Against Retributivism

Abstract Retributivism’s definitive tenet is that satisfying a criminal wrongdoer’s negative desert morally justifies legal punishment independently of any good consequences that might result. The Epistemic Argument against traditional harsh retributivism imposes on such retributivists the burden of establishing beyond reasonable doubt that sometimes we are morally responsible for performing actions in the sense that we deserve to be praised or punished for doing them if we possess cognitive sensitivity to their moral status when we perform them. The Epistemic Argument may have force against traditional harsh retributivism, whose penal objective is inconsistent with respecting a substantial limit on the severity of harm and suffering that can be imposed on deserving offenders. But it is significantly less forceful if extended against any form of retributivism whose penal objectives respect such a limit.