Utilitarian And Kantian Concept Of Punishment
Print this
Table of Contents S. No. | Content | Page No. | | Introduction | 3. | | Research Methodology | 4. | | Chapter 1: Utility of Punishment | 6. | | Chapter 2: Retributive Justice And Legitimacy | 10. | | Chapter 3: Can Capital Punishment Be Justified | 13 | | Chapter 4: Finding A Middle Way | 15. | | Conclusion | 17. | | Bibliography | 18. |
Introduction
Punishment entails the intentional infliction of pain or some type of deprivation in an institutionalized form that individuals would generally prefer to avoid. This requires justification to be morally acceptable. Attempts to provide justification for infliction of punishment are made by various punishment theories.
Punishment theories generally can be separated into a handful of philosophical camps—consequentialist theories, non-consequentialist theories, and mixed (or hybrid) theories that contain both consequentialist and non-consequentialist elements. What distinguishes these theories is their focus and goals: Consequentialist theories are forward-looking, concerned with the future consequences of punishment; non-consequentialist theories are backward-looking, interested solely in past acts and mental states; and mixed theories are both forward- and backward-looking, with each hybrid placing a different emphasis on culpable past conduct versus future consequences.
The present paper will briefly examine the two dominant consequentialist and non-consequentialist theories of criminal punishment–utilitarianism and retributivism, respectively–as well as leading hybrid theories. In between using the utilitarian and Kantian arguments fallacy of death penalty has also been explored.
Research Methodology
Aims and objectives:
Present paper attempts to sketch the significance of two seemingly opposing justifications of punishment.