The Moral Education Theory Of Punishment

957 WordsNov 8, 20154 Pages
I would now like to further demark the limitations of power that the government can have over its’ citizens with the Parent/ Child versus Law argument presented by Jean Hampton in “The Moral Education Theory of Punishment”. Hampton says that parents are much more entitled to punish their children than any other institution, and particularly governments, as parents have the role of what Hampton dubs “moral paternalism,” which is to teach their children the entire content of morality. Other Philosophers such as John Stuart Mill have also rejected a role of paternalism in government and go even further and say that a law cannot restrict what an individual does to himself, “specifically, such philosophers as John Stuart Mill have rejected the state’s passing any law which would restrict what an individual can do to himself (as opposed to what he can do to another) (John Stuart Mill on Jean Hampton 218-219). This is also a principle that Nozick defends “to the right of persons to be left alone and live their own lives, provided they are not violating the rights of others” (Nozick 381). These limits agree with the origins of our legislation and I believe are quintessential to creating moral legislation as well as picking which actions are punishable by the state and which are not. In summary, what I find to be a valid moral justification theory of punishment incorporates the above mentioned limitations of law as explained by Hampton and Mill. Furthermore, I would like to
Open Document