Prerequisite: Criminal Law

Exam Type: No Exam

Why, if at all, should we punish wrongdoers? For centuries, many have assumed that the answer must lie in one of two familiar camps: retributivism, which seeks to give offenders their just deserts, or consequentialism, which aims to reduce crime or rehabilitate offenders. But retributivism struggles to explain what (if anything) is good about the suffering of offenders, while consequentialism struggles to explain why it is permissible (at least in principle) to punish the innocent, or to disproportionately punish the guilty. In The Ends of Harm, Victor Tadros offers perhaps the most innovative and intricate theory of punishment in a generation, which he calls the “duty” view, which attempts to avert the problems with both retributivism and consequentialism. The Ends of Harm raises foundational questions about the structure of criminal law, the ethics of coercion, and the moral limits of state power. Over the course of the semester, we will work through the book chapter by chapter, interrogating Tadros’ core claims and our own fundamental moral commitments. No background in philosophy is required, but students should be prepared to discuss very abstract and very intricate moral arguments at length.

Note: This reading group will meet on the following dates: TBD.