Scholarlink

<p>The purpose of Adam Kolber’s magnificent book is to show that a consequentialist theory of punishment is superior to standard retributivism. In this comment I argue that Kolber is right when he rejects the claim that the traditional punishment of the innocent argument provides sufficient grounds for the rejection of consequentialism, but also that it may be the case that threshold retributivism is more attractive than consequentialism when it comes to intuitive fit. Furthermore, it is suggested that this possibility gives rise to a trilemma which Kolber will have to confront in order to ultimately establish the superiority of consequentialism over retributivism.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Consequentialism, Threshold Retributivism, and Moral Intuitions

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年4月10日

查看全文
  • Jesper Ryberg

摘要

The purpose of Adam Kolber’s magnificent book is to show that a consequentialist theory of punishment is superior to standard retributivism. In this comment I argue that Kolber is right when he rejects the claim that the traditional punishment of the innocent argument provides sufficient grounds for the rejection of consequentialism, but also that it may be the case that threshold retributivism is more attractive than consequentialism when it comes to intuitive fit. Furthermore, it is suggested that this possibility gives rise to a trilemma which Kolber will have to confront in order to ultimately establish the superiority of consequentialism over retributivism.