Chapter 10 Flashcards
According to Kant
human beings occupy a special place in creation.
According to Bentham
1 all punishment is mischief. 2 all punishment in itself is evil.
According to Kant human beings
have intrinsic worth.
According to Rachels the traditional answer to the question is punishment justified is that
it is a way of paying back the offender for his wicked deed.
According to Rachels justice requires that
only if you harm someone you should be harmed too.
According to Kant animals
only have value insofar as they serve human purposes.
According to Rachel’s, “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth is called
Retributivism.
According to Kant (duties to animals)
we have no direct duties to animals.
According to Bentham an eye for an eye
is wrong because it would increase the amount of misery in the world
According to Kant “He who is cruel to animals…
becomes hard in his dealings with men.
According to Kant punishment may increase the misery in the world
but this is alright, for the extra suffering is borne by those who deserve it.
According to Kant for humans have value above
have value above all price.
According to Rachels punishment can benefit society because (provides…)
it provides comfort and gratification to victims and their families.
According to Kant people
are irreplaceable.
According to Rachels punishment can benefit society because (by locking..)
by locking up criminals, or by executing them, we take them off the streets, so there is less crime and society is protected.
According to Rachels punishment can benefit society because (reduces… 2)
2 punishment reduces crime by deterring would-be criminals.
2 someone who is tempted to commit a crime might not do so if he knows he will be punished.
According to Rachels punishment can benefit society because (design)
a well designed system of punishment might help rehabilitate wrongdoers.
According to Rachels (Rehabilitation)
the rehabilitation mentality of the 1960’s has been replaced by a warehousing mentality.
Kant disliked utilitarianism because
it is incompatible with human dignity.
According to Kant people (dignity)
have a dignity that mere things lack.