2008Oxford University Press eBooksRequires access

Competing Conceptions of Desert: Vengeful, Deontological, and Empirical

Paul H. Robinson

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

This chapter examines desert as a distributive principle. It considers the three conceptions of desert evident in the present debates over the propriety of desert as a distributive principle: vengeful desert, deontological desert, and empirical desert. Vengeful desert focuses upon the offense harm and victim suffering and sets the deserved punishment to match that of victim's harm and suffering. Deontological desert focuses not on the harm of the offense but on the blameworthiness of the offender. Empirical desert distributes punishment according to principles of justice derived from the community's shared intuitions. It argues that the failure to appreciate the existence of three quite distinct conceptions of desert commonly leads to confusion in the critique of desert as a principle for the distribution of criminal liability and punishment.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

This chapter examines desert as a distributive principle. It considers the three conceptions of desert evident in the present debates over the propriety of desert as a distributive principle: vengeful desert, deontological desert, and empirical desert. Vengeful desert focuses upon the offense harm and victim suffering and sets the deserved punishment to match that of victim's harm and suffering. Deontological desert focuses not on the harm of the offense but on the blameworthiness of the offender. Empirical desert distributes punishment according to principles of justice derived from the community's shared intuitions. It argues that the failure to appreciate the existence of three quite distinct conceptions of desert commonly leads to confusion in the critique of desert as a principle for the distribution of criminal liability and punishment.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

This chapter examines desert as a distributive principle. It considers the three conceptions of desert evident in the present debates over the propriety of desert as a distributive principle: vengeful desert, deontological desert, and empirical desert. Vengeful desert focuses upon the offense harm and victim suffering and sets the deserved punishment to match that of victim's harm and suffering. Deontological desert focuses not on the harm of the offense but on the blameworthiness of the offender. Empirical desert distributes punishment according to principles of justice derived from the community's shared intuitions. It argues that the failure to appreciate the existence of three quite distinct conceptions of desert commonly leads to confusion in the critique of desert as a principle for the distribution of criminal liability and punishment.

Key concepts: Desert (philosophy), Punishment (psychology), Harm, Confusion, Criminology, Distributive justice, Environmental ethics, Psychology

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Competing Conceptions of Desert: Vengeful, Deontological, and Empirical — Research Paper | ScholarLens