Session 16: Who is the Villain, Retribution or Restoration

Guest Speaker:  Shervin MirzaeiGhazi (Ph.D. candidate in Practical Philosophy, Lund University)

MARCH 12th, 2023 

Abstract

In this paper, I will argue against a way of criticising retributive punishment that is usually utilised by proponents of restorative justice, namely demonising. After explaining what I mean by the term and showing why demonising cannot work against retribution, I will argue against restorative justice by diagnosing its revenge mentality as a deeply problematic feature. In fact, I claim that contrary to what many think, restorative justice has more in common with what is wrong about revenge.

Suggested reading before the meeting

• Nozick, R. (1983). Philosophical explanations. Harvard University Press. (Section on Retributive Punishment).

• Kaufman, W. R. (2016). Revenge as the dark double of retributive punishment. Philosophia, 44(2), 317-325.

Speaker’s Biography

Shervin is a Ph.D. student of practical philosophy at Lund University. His thesis is on the relationship between determinism and responsibility. He also works on responsibility-related practices like blame and punishment.

Links to the literature mentioned in this meeting

• Nozick, R. (1983). Philosophical explanations. Harvard University Press. (Section on Retributive Punishment)

• Kaufman, W. R. (2016). Revenge as the dark double of retributive punishment. Philosophia, 44(2), 317-325