Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T16:29:50.166Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

It Serves you Right1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2009

A. R. Manser
Affiliation:
University of Southampton.

Extract

In this paper I want to examine the notion of desert, which seems to have been neglected by contemporary philosophers. Apartfrom its interest in its own right, it is important to be clear about the meaning of the word if there is to be any understanding of the idea of punishment. And that we are confused over the whole issue of punishment is obvious both from the remarks of professional philosophers and from the comments of the ‘man in the street’. Because of this confusion, the discussion of any actual punishment seems to take place between two parties who never get to grips with the arguments of the other, as in the whole debate over the death penalty. To one set of people, it is obvious that the retention of hanging depends to a large extent on the question of its effectiveness in deterring murderers; to another it is equally obvious that the murderer ‘deserves’ to hang, and that there is no more to be said about the matter. Capital punishment is not a good starting-point for a discussion of punishment in general, for death is clearly unique among penalties; in addition, the topic gives rise inevitably to much sentimentality and resulting muddle-headedness.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy 1962

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 294 note 1 PHILOSOPHY, 1958, p. 341.

page 294 note 2 In Mind, 1939.

page 295 note 1 Everyman ed., p. 41.

page 295 note 2 Analysis, No. 42, p. 139.

page 295 note 3 Ethical Studies, pp. 26–7.

page 295 note 4 Op. cit., p. 137.

page 295 note 5 PHILOSOPHY, 1954.

page 296 note 1 Cmd 8932, p. 17.

page 296 note 2 Op. cit., p. 328.

page 296 note 3 Op. cit., p. 28.

page 297 note 1 Ed. cit., p. 53.

page 297 note 2 Summa Theologka, Pt.3, Q.94, art.2.

page 298 note 1 Loeb ed., pp. 299–301.

page 298 note 2 The Great Divorce, p. 110.

page 299 note 1 Phil. of Right, Knox's trans., p. 246.

page 299 note 2 Quoted Mabbott, Mind 1939, p. 158.

page 299 note 3 PHILOSOPHY, 1954, p. 293

page 299 note 4 Laws, Jowett trans., 862.

page 300 note 1 Op. cit., p. 294.

page 300 note 2 I do not refer in this paper to Mr Mabbott's more recent discussion of the subject in his paper ‘Freewill and Punishment’ in Contemporary British Philosophy, III, 1956.

page 302 note 1 Monadology, Sect. 89.

page 304 note 1 ‘Imprisonment’, in Prefaces, p. 310.

page 306 note 1 Phil, of Right, §99.