Main content
Course: Wireless Philosophy > Unit 8
Lesson 7: Non-retributivist justifications of punishmentEvaluating the argument
Non-Retributivist Justifications of Punishment:
Evaluate and discuss the argument presented in this video.
After reading a series of studies showing not only that sugary drinks are highly addictive but also that their consumption significantly increases the risk of various health problems, the mayor of a large city proposes a law to criminalize and impose a steep fine on the sale of popular sugary drinks in the city. The proposal is met with mixed responses from the public, with a substantial group of residents strongly opposed.
Consider the following lines of argument given against this attempt to govern by criminalization:
- It’s outrageous to stigmatize store owners as criminals and will likely put them out of business with massive fines merely for selling sugary drinks—especially since the stores with the most to lose if forced to stop selling these products would be small businesses that are most frequently owned by people who already face more than their fair share of disadvantages within the community.
- While the aim of this proposal seems well-intentioned, the mayor has terribly miscalculated the incentive structure needed to promote healthier consumption choices. Not only are the proposed consequences excessively severe, but in some cases, the interests of sellers and consumers might lead to the creation of a black market for these drinks. It’s better to simply impose a small tax on these items; better yet to subsidize the consumption of healthier drinks.
- Just because the mayor and others prioritize physical health to such a degree that they’re willing to sacrifice significant amounts of time, money, and everyday pleasure to maintain their own good health, that doesn’t mean there aren’t other residents with different priorities. In fact, many residents aren’t interested in making such sacrifices for the sake of their health. The proposal assumes that these less healthy choices must be irrational, and even unethical, but in fact they simply reflect a different set of values, no more criminal than the mayor’s.
In your opinion, which of these arguments points to the most significant problem with the mayor's attempt to manage this public health concern through criminalization? Is this problem significant enough for you oppose such non-retributivist justifications of punishment, or do you think the virtues of using criminal punishment for such purposes outweigh its downsides?
Discuss this question with a friend! Compare answers, and think together openly yet critically about the pros and cons of non-retributivist justifications of punishment.