Kant and the Morality of Anger

Firstly, it is important to acknowledge the concept of ‘just deserts’ where punishment reflects the pain caused and therefore earned by the criminal. To expand based on Hudson (1996) ‘an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth’ punishment must be proportional to the crime. All forms of custodial

Although the act that person may have committed was unlawful does it truly give us a right to evoke the “an eye for an eye” mentality? Another part to Kant’s categorical system is ensuring that everyone follows their moral compass in a way that the greatest maxim, or a universal rule that applies to everyone (Wells-Quash, 2010). Quite frankly if implementing “an eye for an eye” as a universal law was picked up for every situation people thought of, then figuratively speaking everyone would essentially go blind, in the sense that they have closed themselves off on one of the most difficult challenges humans can do to another human being: forgiveness.

The four justifications for punishment include, “retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitation” (Reichel, 2013, p. 231). Retribution is when a person receives a punishment as a result for committing a crime (Reichel, 2013). This form of punishment is deemed necessary by society because a person deserves to pay for breaking the law (Reichel, 2013). “A goal of retribution is to retaliate for the wrong done in such a way that the nature of the punishment reflects the nature of the offense” (Reichel, 2013, p. 231). That is why there are different sentences for different crimes because each deserves a certain punishment (Reichel, 2013). For example, a person who commits murder isn’t going to receive the same punishment as a person

On the topic of punishment Durkheim suggests that ‘Punishment is a passionate social reaction, of graduated intensity’, (Breathnach, 2002).

This piece concludes by stating that when punishment is made to serve the purpose of deterrence, consequentialist undermines the dignity of man and rather end up changing individual to suit what society wants them to be rather than what they desert for their moral faults. If this is so then punishment is not justified. For this reason I stand to the notion that unless punishment is a response to moral fault it is

Punishment is the consequent effect that you get for doing a particular crime. Some of these punishments focus on just punishing the criminal, while others are about giving an effective punishment to make sure the person would not reoffend. There are two main theories of punishment, which are utilitarian and retributive theories of punishment. This essay will discuss the theory of retributive punishment with regards to its historical beginnings, key theorists supporting and critiquing this theory and how it is still being applied in this contemporary era.

Kant endorsed the principle of lex talionis, which states that that we should treat criminals as they treated their victims (182). “To punish criminals this way would be satisfying for the victims and can show the criminals what things are like for their victims” (Shafter-Landau, Russ. The Fundamentals Of Ethics, New York: Oxford University Press, 2015) (182). There are three objections to lex including the strongest objection which is “the guidance that lex provides, when it does prescribe a punishment, is sometimes deeply immoral” (184). The second is “lex cannot explain why criminals who intentionally hurt their victims should be punished more than those who accidentally caused harm” (183). The final argument is that “we cannot tell what

The concept of punishment exists in many different forms, each with conflicting views on how to best approach an offence committed by individuals. Two theories stand at the forefront of punishment being that of the Utilitarian, and Retributive theories. Each theory presents its own idea on how punishment ought to be carried out and the core reasoning behind it. The two theories are also debated within our own Canadian legal system which is referred to as: The Criminal Code of Canada, where it details the different principles and procedures when sentencing an individual who has committed a specific offence with guidelines for what sanction should be given. Such principles/procedures reflect various factors within the two theories, and have undergone different fluctuations for which theory has dominated throughout history, but have been influenced more by one theory than from the other. Generally speaking, punishment is invoked upon offenders for the pursuit of the common good of mankind for a society that prospers, and not one that is hindered. Two primary theorists each lead one of the theories of punishment and what its purpose is; one who stands from a Utilitarian view is Jeremy Bentham, and the other being Immanuel Kant who focuses on a more Retributive theory of punishment.

The prevalence of crime is a substantial part of society. As a result, the development of punishment has been essential in contributing to social order. Despite extensive research conducted into the ideals surrounding crime and punishment, this research does not act as a solely relied upon source of information for society.

Byrd restates her thesis that the threat of punishment is meant to deter an individual from committing a crime. In society the threat of punishment is the coercion used to guard and prevent any unjust interferences with individual freedom. When moving from a state of nature to a civil society one gives up the ability to coerce another in exchange for guaranteed security. Meaning that in a state of nature one has the right to force coerce from another as long as it does not obstruct the other’s right to freedom, however in civil society one sacrifices that freedom to have guaranteed security. The civil society provides security through punishment. The society must punish to maintain security and the punishment that it provides must correspond to the security of future victims. Byrd argues that Kant’s theory does not solidify society’s right to punish in a retributive way but rather it solidifies society’s right to deter crime. If threatening of punishment is suppose to act as deterrence to persuade an individual from breaking a law, nonetheless it is not in situations where the individual is negligent because the individual had no intent to cause harm. Kant believes punishment should be equal to the hindrance of freedom that is represented by the crime. That can be described as retributive for the reason that the punishment is equal to the hindrance of freedom. Kant also believes that if the punishment is less than

Disregarding these cases, from the understanding of the judicial standpoint Kant believes one must be punished for the murder of another human being by means of taking their life, as seen in the quote above. Kant argues one imposes their will on another individual when they take that individual’s life. Due to this fact, to justly punish one who committed murder, the judicial system must impose on one’s will in the same manner as they did their victim’s will. Moreover, Kant argues killing a murder must be done to protect the greater good of humanity. Furthermore, to Kant, this punishment of a murder is consistent with his belief every human being is an autonomous being. He argues one who wills the amoral action which is not accordance with the

7. Kant’s ethics gives us firm standards that do not depend on results; it injects a humanistic element into moral decision making and stresses the importance of acting on principle and from a sense of duty. Critics, however, worry that (a) Kant’s view of moral worth is too restrictive, (b) the categorical imperative is not a sufficient test of right and wrong, and (c) distinguishing between treating people as means and respecting them as ends in themselves may be difficult in practice.

The retributivist theory of punishment says, “…punishment is justified on the grounds that wrongdoing merits punishment”

The need for punishment has always been necessary in our world. In the modern justice system, offenders are judged and punishment by the government and not those whom the offended. While this approach has taken punishment out of the hand of those whom have been offended, it is still at its center a type retribution. The theory of retribution states at its core that criminals deserve to suffer and prisons should make sure that they suffer for their crimes. The approach does have some good points. First, this approach focuses on the punishment being equal in

    Andrew von Hirsch writes, in defense of proportional retributivism, that the “severity of punishment should be commensurate with the seriousness of the wrong. Only grave wrongs merit sever penalties; minor misdeeds deserve lenient punishments” (384). This view appeals to me, but I agree with Nathanson in