3 ms·
If Kant said that then he was trivially wrong. For example, if you blind someone, how is that not just as irrestorable?
by caf 10y ago
If Kant said that then he was trivially wrong.
For example, if you blind someone, how is that not just as irrestorable?
- lr4444lr 10y agoI believe he was a pretty "eye for an eye" guy: "This is the right of retaliation (jus [lex] talionis); and, properly understood, it is the only principle which in regulating a public court (as opposed to individuals’ private judgement), can definitely assign both the quality and the quantity of a just penalty." (http://acad.depauw.edu/~jeremyanderson/old/120s05/120z_kant.html http://acad.depauw.edu/~jeremyanderson/old/120s05/120z_kant....) But you have to realize, this is not to be read in isolation as a rehash of Hammurabi''s code. There is significant axiomatic and theoretical foundation that brings Kant to this conclusion, which has significant influence in modern ethics.
- caf 10y agoThis is a different question though - one of penalties rather than one of restoration.