The most widespread interpretation amongst contemporary theorists of Kant's theory of punishment is that it is retributivist. On the contrary, I will argue there are very different senses in which Kant discusses punishment. He endorses retribution for moral law transgressions and consequentialist considerations for positive law violations. When these standpoints are taken into consideration, Kant's theory of punishment is more coherent and unified than previously thought. This reading uncovers a new problem in Kant's theory of punishment. By assuming a potential (...) offender's intentional disposition as Kant does without knowing it for certain, we further exacerbate the opportunity for misdiagnosis. (shrink)

En la tradición ilustrada de Kant y en la tradición aristotélica de Tomás de Aquino encontramos los mismos elementos para explicar la experiencia moral: razón práctica del hombre común, ley moral, voluntad, inclinaciones naturales. Pero la relación de estos elementos entre sí varía radicalmente de una tradición a otra, ya que en la tradición kantiana la razón práctica y la ley moral son completamente heterogéneas respecto a las inclinaciones naturales. En la tradición aristotélica de Tomás de Aquino, en cambio, la (...) razón práctica que conoce la ley moral es parte de la naturaleza del hombre. En la tradición kantiana la ética se encuentra completamente separada de la antropología, y no se conoce a partir de la experiencia. En la tradición aristotélico-tomista, la ética se conoce a partir de la experiencia y su conocimiento es explicable a partir de ella. Both Kant’s Enlightenment tradition and Aquinas’ Aristotelian tradition will usually manage the same elements in order to explain the reality of moral experience, namely: practical reason of the common man, moral law, will, and natural inclinations. Yet the relation existing between these elements certainly varies from one tradition to the other since, within Kantian tradition, practical reason and moral law are completely heterogeneous with regard to natural inclinations. On the contrary, within Aquinas’ Aristotelian tradition, the same practical reason that recognizes the moral law is itself an element of human nature as well. Thus, according to Kantian tradition, ethics are totally detached from anthropology, and they are not grasped out of experience. Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition would state that ethics are grasped through experience and, although they are certainly not derived from anthropology, this later would make the grasping of the former explicable. (shrink)