REWARD AND

PUNISHMENT
 Lesson Outcomes
1. Describe the relationship between reward and punishment and justice
2. Describe the meanings and differences among the three theories of reward and punishment
(retribution, utilitarianism, and restitution)
3. Identify theories of justice
4. Define human rights and describe the relationship of rights to moral duties
 Group Discussion Question
 Consider the following scenario: A hospital is cut off from the world and there are a few
patients in dire need of a dialysis. However, the hospital can only afford to give dialysis to ONE
patient. As such only one patient will survive and the others will die soon. Also, all of the
patients are in the same condition.

 What criteria would you use to choose who gets the dialysis? Why?
 Definition of Key Terms
1. Reward - something given or received for worthy behavior, usually on basis of merit, deserts
or ability
2. Punishment -act of penalizing someone for a crime, fault, misbehavior, penalty for
wrongdoing.
3. Justice - quality of being just; fairness. The principle of moral rightness; equity.
4. Retributive justice (Deserts theory) – Eye for an eye. Get what one deserves regardless of
consequences
5. Distributive Justice - dispense reward and punishment on a just and fair basis.
6. Utilitarianism (Results theory) – results of the act and if it brings about greatest good
consequences for greatest amount of people.
7. Restitutive Justice (Compensation theory) - compensating victim for harm or wrong done.
Perpetrator required to make such compensation.
 Justice
Reward and punishment in relation to justice
 Reward and punishment will be discussed in the context of justice.
 

Elements of justice
 Several elements of justice apply to reward and punishment. Being just and fair to other humans.

What justice involves

 How should we distribute justice, i.e. good and bad, right and wrong, reward and punishment on
a just and fair basis?
 Otherwise known as distributive justice.
 Justice
Concern with past events
 Justice concerned with the past, what has been done rather than what might or perhaps will be
done. Rewards and punishments, of course, affect the future.

Individualistic rather than collectivistic

 Individuals rather than groups are punished or rewarded. Punishing groups (mass punishment)
can lead to injustice.

Comparative injustice
 Deals with comparisons of treatment in terms of rewards and punishment.
 Ex: Two murderers with each getting different punishments based on circumstances
surrounding the crime.
 Reward
Rewards can be distributed in four ways:

1. Equally without regard to ability or merit

2. According to ability
3. According to merit or desert
4. According to needs
 Egalitarian Criterion or Equal Distribution of Goods and
Rewards
 Equal distribution without regard to ability or merit.
 Example of Swedish Hospital and kidney dialysis. How to decide who gets dialysis when need
surpasses ability to provide. What criteria are applicable or more important than the other? Is a
lottery the most fair and ethical means of deciding?

Problems with equality of distribution:

 Egalitarian method ignores merit, ability, need, etc. Should those with differing aptitudes,
skills, abilities be treated the same?
 Equality of consideration if they have other Attributes – race, sex, religion, age, handicap – to
what extent are these important factors?
 Are people really equal? What is equality?
 Criteria for Rewarding People
1. Production, or what people produce
 Quality and/or quality production as criteria for reward. Those who produce better or more should be
rewarded accordingly.

2. Effort
 Reward effort regardless of quality or quantities of work.
 How do you reward effort?

3. Ability
 Natural ability. Should people be rewarded for simply having ability for which they have had no
responsibility?
 How should acquired ability be rewarded? Should those with ability be rewarded even if they choose to not
utilize their abilities?
 Criteria for rewarding people
4. Need
- Rewards based on need.
 Private need – what individuals need as a result of poverty. What should be given? Money,
jobs, scholarships? Consider the latter. Should the brightest or the most needy get the
scholarship?
 Does reward in terms of need eliminate incentive? Is rewarding those in need fair to those who are
talented and hardworking?

 Public need – Reward based on fulfilling public need. Should a basketball player receive
greater rewards than a nurse?
 Other Criterias
 Long and expensive training including profession
 Job or profession requiring expensive equipment
 Physical danger
 Unpleasantness of job
 Seniority
 Theories of how to reward
Two main theories deal with how to reward (& punish)
1. Retributivism (just deserts)
2. Utilitarianism (results)

Retributivism
 People deserve rewards (or punishments) for what they have done and not for what the consequences
of what they have done may be.
 What they have done is primarily assessed in terms of effort, NOT ability.

Utilitarianism
 Reward only on the basis of bringing this the most good for everyone.
 Does this tend to reward results, not hard work or desert? Could reward an undeserving person
simply because to do so may bring good results.
 John Rawls and the Theory of Justice
 John Rawls (1921-2002) is another prominent
nonconsequentialist, especially his “Theory of Justice.”

Natural rights versus rights of a just society

 Human rights (life, liberty and property) are considered “natural
rights.” (Something that we possess by virtue of existing)
 Ex: The American Declaration of Independence was founded on this
principle (pursuit of happiness instead of property), and they cannot
be violated by government.
 BUT, where do these natural rights come from?
 

 For Rawls, rights are given through a “just society” where no

one has an unfair advantage.
 A “just society” is founded on those principles that we would
agree to from behind a “veil of ignorance.”
 Meaning that one views society in a neutral manner without regard to
the individual characteristics of anyone
 Rawls’ Concept of Justice
Two basic principles according to Rawls would be adopted:
1. Equality principle – equal rights to maximum liberty; (freedom for all)
2. Difference principle - inequality is acceptable IF everyone benefits and has equal opportunity
to receive such benefits.
 These principles together would create a just society for Rawls and ought to be accepted given
that no one will know in advance how the principles will work out for them.

Difference between Rawls and Nozick

 Rawls is liberal, Nozick is libertarian. For Nozick, liberty is the good that society ought to
protect. For Rawls, society needs to protect a range of goods. For Rawls, ultimately wealth
belongs to society. For Nozick, it belongs to individuals.
 Advantages and Disadvantages of Rawls
 Fits with ideals of liberal capitalism: individual freedoms, equitable distribution of wealth. Ex:
U.S.

 Is a “veil of ignorance” possible? Can one be truly neutral?

 Punishment
 Moral or legal punishment usually involved four elements (Requirements for Punishment):
 It must involve unpleasantness.
 Punishment must be given or done for something.
 It should be imposed or given by those with requisite authority.
 It must be imposed according to laws or rules violated by offender.
 

 Justice perhaps best served by law rather than private individuals for two reasons:
 Private punishment looks more like vengeance than justice (vendetta)
 Public punishment more amenable to justice being carried out. (unbiased) Ex: juries, public courts.
 Theories of Punishment
Retributive (Deserts theory)
 Punishment only when it is deserved not in order to accomplish anything, such as deter.
Imposed because of a crime committed and not a social good to be achieved.

Why crime requires punishment

Two reasons:
 Re-establish balance of morality – “scale of justice”.
 Eliminate or set right advantages achieved to wrong doers.
 Problems
Problems with determining desert
 How to match crime to punishment. Desert theory need not consider mercy or forgiveness.
 Should a crime committed a lifetime ago be punished equally with the same crime committed
yesterday? Should a “mercy killing” be punished equally with a cold-blooded murder?

Problem of mercy
 Should mercy be shown to criminals? To all, some, none?
 Should retributivists stick solely to idea that punishment is based on desert?

Problem of determining seriousness of offenses & punishment

 What are the most serious offenses and punishments?
 In some cultures stealing is punished with death or hands are cut off. What offenses deserve
what punishments?
 Punishment
Mirror-image theory: punishment mirrors crime
“An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”
 Punishment should be suitable, appropriate for the crime. Ex: Killers should be killed themselves.
 But how do you punish rape, torture and child molesters?

Utilitarian or results theory

 Punishment is future oriented – looks to consequences/ results. Something good may result from punishment.
 Two sanctions meant to discourage/eliminate criminal behavior:
 Internal – directed to conscience which leads to guilt, shame
 External – laws or penalties imposed for immoral behavior
 These sanctions are justified by the good consequences or results they bring about. If punishment rates better than
some other practice, then it is justified
 To punish people just because they deserve it, unless it brings about good consequences, would not be moral or
just.
 Consequences for the offender
 Should punishment bring about good consequence for offender?
 Aim at rehabilitation or reform—does it really work?
 Can and should offenders be treated?

Consequences for potential offenders – deterrence

 Does punishment deter?
 No real evidence that punishment deters.
 Using criminal as “means to an end” (something Kant would object)
 If punishment deters then works with the innocent as well as the guilty.

Effects on society at large – Protection

 How effective is punishment in protecting society in the long run? Would other means serve us better?
 Problems with justice
 For the utilitarian, punishment is justified by utilizing justice. Aims more at social engineering.
 Doesn’t concern itself with the justice of the punishment.
 Again, consequences rule the day here.

Restitution, or compensation for victims theory

 Justice is served only if victims are compensated.

Crime against State, not individual

 Is crime a violation of the individual or State? Compensation necessary for individual to counteract crime against State.
 Restitution fits quite well with our other 2 main theories.

Problems
 How much restitution is sufficient? (murder, rape, molestation)
 Should rich criminals pay more than poor ones?
 Can old or sick criminals be expected to compensate their victims?
 Doesn’t distinguish between intentional and unintentional injury or harm. Ex: Manslaughter, accidents
 Is a Synthesis possible?
Could a synthesis of the three theories work?
 Retributivism – desert or merit as reward but not exclusively. Innocent should not be punished and
punishment “fit the crime.”

 Utilitarianism – modify or moderate rewards or punishments according to usefulness, especially those

that seem harsh or unfair.

 Restitution – compensation can bring about good consequences to the most deserving of victims.

Some other possibilities for the distribution of goods or rewards

 Distribute goods equitably in terms of need and moderate according to desert, or merit or ability or as a
result of productivity, effort, hardship, etc.
 So, in conclusion, a synthetic approach appears best for both reward and punishment without losing sight
of need and the egalitarian approach
 Human Rights
 What constitutes “human rights” may differ from culture to culture.
 However, the concept of right-based thinking in the Western world derives from the Judeo-Christian
tradition and ancient Greeks.
 Rights, as understood today, derive from the Enlightenment conception that viewed individuals as free,
rational, autonomous moral agents.

The Concept of a Right

 Rights are essentially entitlements—something you have fundamentally as a human being.
 As such, you are allowed to make claims on individuals, employers, and even the government.
 A right is the rational basis for morally justifiable demand, and thus impose moral duties.
 Kant stressed the correlation between rights and duties. He believed that human rights are linked with
human dignity.
 The United Nations Declaration of Human Right (1948) applies to all human beings.
The Importance of the Contribution of Human Rights to Civilization

 In his keynote address at the 1994 “Rethinking Human Rights” conference, Chandra Muzaffar
highlighted the important contributions human rights have made to civilization:

1. Human rights have strengthened the position of the individual as never before in history.
2. Because it empowers individuals, human rights has contributed toward the transformation of
authoritarian political systems into democratic political structures.
3. Human rights have checked the abuse and arbitrariness in the exercise of power by those in
authority.
4. Human rights have compelled political leaders and other wielders of power to become more
accountable to the people.
 Problems with Human Rights
 The first major problem with human rights is the problem of universality versus cultural or
developmental relativism (Chapter 5).
 The second is with enforcement. What should be done about human rights violations? What
grounds can be cited for international intervention or imposed sanctions?
 Competing priorities:
 Right to life vs. right to choose
 Civil and political rights versus economic, social, and cultural rights
 Individual rights vs. citizen duties
 Discussion Questions
1. Which is the more important principle in punishing: giving people what they deserve or
punishing only if you can bring about good consequences? Why?

2. What should be emphasized in punishment: the deterrence and rehabilitation of the offender,
the deterrence of others, or the protection of society? Why?

3. How would you as the committee decide who will be the person receiving dialysis? Which is
the most just and fair method/criteria will you use to select the deserving person?