This project seeks to investigate two basic moral philosophic theories called utilitarianism and retributivism arguments for punishment. The purpose of this project is further to analyze and discuss the differences and similarities between these two theories.
To examine this problem this project will use John Rawls method of reflective equilibrium to clarify if the utilitarian theory and the retributivist theory seeks to achieve reflective equilibrium in their arguments for punishment. This project results implicates, that the utilitarian theory´s argument for punishment, indicate that punishment shall maximize joy or welfare. In the retributivist theory, the argument for punishment is based on the fact, that punishment is earned because the low-offender has done something wrong, and therefore the punishment is fair. In the examination and discussion of whether these two theories achieve reflective equilibrium, this project concludes, that neither of the theories achieve reflective equilibrium in their arguments for punishment. The two theories are both creating contradictive moral decisions, which cannot give the theories an argument that is in reflective equilibrium.
|Uddannelser||Basis - Humanistisk Bacheloruddannelse, (Bachelor uddannelse) Basis|
|Udgivelsesdato||18 dec. 2018|
|Vejledere||Thomas Søbirk Petersen|
- Straf, utilitarisme, retributivisme, reflekteret ligevægt.