Homework on The Problem of Punishment, Chapter 3, by David Boonin

You will probably have to read the entire essay before answering these questions. All answers must be in your own words. What you turn in does not need to include the questions; just put the answers (and, of course, number them).

1. In section 3.1.1, Dr. Boonin presents the argument from cases. This argument is based on punishment being deserved by certain people. Dr. Boonin discusses a number of ways of interpreting what "deserves" means, some of which (he argues) do not make the argument from cases a good argument. Ultimately (towards the end of this section), Dr. Boonin gives an account of what "deserves" means that can be used in a non-circular / non-question-begging argument to justify punishment. Explain in your own words what it means to say "so and so deserves to be punished" on this account. (2pts)

2. According to Dr. Boonin in section 3.1.2
a) are all violations of the law immoral? (1pt)
b) Why is this a problem for the argument from cases (answer this in 2 sentences or less)? (1pt)

3. According to Dr. Boonin in section 3.1.3
a) is it obvious that only people who break the law deserve harm? (1pt)
b) Why is this a problem for the argument from cases (answer in 2 sentences or less)? (1pt)

4. According to Dr. Boonin in section 3.1.4
a) does the fact that X is a better state of affairs than Y always mean that we have the right to make X happen? (1 pt)
b) Why is this a problem for the argument from cases? (1pt)

5. Because most of you seem to think that punishing someone more than they deserve is wrong, it seems that you think retribution is one of the important reasons that justify punishment. Do Dr. Boonin's objections to retributivism apply to your view of who deserves punishment? Why or why not? (2pts)