Document Type
Article
Publication Date
2006
Publication Title
Pacific Philosophical Quarterly
Volume
87
Issue
2
First Page
231
Last Page
244
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0114.2006.00257.x
Abstract
W. D. Ross thinks it is good, other things equal, that people get what they deserve. But he denies that “the principle of punishing the vicious, for the sake of doing so, is that on which the state should proceed in its bestowal of punishments.” Ross offers two main arguments for this denial: what I call the “scope argument” and the “state's purpose argument.” I argue that both fail. In doing so, I illuminate Ross's distinctive views about desert and the state.
Recommended Citation
Moriarty, Jeffrey, 2006. Ross on Desert and Punishment, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly.
COinS
