Scholarlink

<p>In my book, <i>Punishment for the Greater Good</i>, I raised a question punishment theorists rarely address: if we seek a moral theory that speaks to real-world punishment today, which theory should we use? My thesis is that, in the here and now, the pure consequentialist approach yields more trustworthy determinations about the justifiability of incarceration than does the standard retributivist approach. In this surreply, I respond to insightful commentaries on the book from eight scholars: (1) Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, (2) Jesper Ryberg, (3) Doug Husak, (4) Michelle Dempsey, (5) Alec Walen, (6) Gideon Yaffe, (7) Erin Kelly, and (8) Gideon Rosen. Among the many topics covered, I argue against the traditional definition of punishment, against threshold deontology, and in favor of approaches to theory that are ready to use in the here and now.</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

Punishment for the Greater Good: Replies to Critics

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年4月27日

查看全文
  • Adam J. Kolber

摘要

In my book, Punishment for the Greater Good, I raised a question punishment theorists rarely address: if we seek a moral theory that speaks to real-world punishment today, which theory should we use? My thesis is that, in the here and now, the pure consequentialist approach yields more trustworthy determinations about the justifiability of incarceration than does the standard retributivist approach. In this surreply, I respond to insightful commentaries on the book from eight scholars: (1) Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, (2) Jesper Ryberg, (3) Doug Husak, (4) Michelle Dempsey, (5) Alec Walen, (6) Gideon Yaffe, (7) Erin Kelly, and (8) Gideon Rosen. Among the many topics covered, I argue against the traditional definition of punishment, against threshold deontology, and in favor of approaches to theory that are ready to use in the here and now.