Philosophy 320
Professor Galloway
10/31/2017
Essay 8
Stephen Nathanson’s article, An Eye for an Eye, was the most reasonable reading that has
been assigned in the course, thus far. The expression he uses as the title of his piece is, according
to him, most often used without careful consideration of its true meaning. Nathanson describes it
as the belief that someone who commits a crime should be punished by committing the same
crime against him. But this is not possible, as he points out because not only can it be cruel and
barbaric to punish in such ways, but it could also be impossible in certain cases.
In response to the eye-for-an-eye claim, Nathanson expresses that some will say
punishments should not necessarily be identical to the crimes committed, but rather equivalent to
the amount of suffering caused by the criminal. However, according to him, the problem is still
not solved. It would nevertheless force the punisher to act barbarically by inflicting, in extreme
cases, an absurd amount of pain on the criminal. He additionally points out the fact that suffering
cannot be quantified and therefore, it would be impossible to produce an objective, agreed upon
scale to be used for this method.
Proportional retributivism is the idea that crimes should be measured on a scale of
severity, and in return, criminals would receive the equivalent punishment to the level of severity
of the crime committed. According to Nathanson, this method is much more rational due to its
lack of utilizing barbaric methods of punishment. He claims that it also does not provide support
for the death penalty. I, however, disagree with this part of his article. He does not clarify nor
give any explanation as to what type of penalties would be acceptable with proportional
Professor Galloway
10/31/2017
Essay 8
Stephen Nathanson’s article, An Eye for an Eye, was the most reasonable reading that has
been assigned in the course, thus far. The expression he uses as the title of his piece is, according
to him, most often used without careful consideration of its true meaning. Nathanson describes it
as the belief that someone who commits a crime should be punished by committing the same
crime against him. But this is not possible, as he points out because not only can it be cruel and
barbaric to punish in such ways, but it could also be impossible in certain cases.
In response to the eye-for-an-eye claim, Nathanson expresses that some will say
punishments should not necessarily be identical to the crimes committed, but rather equivalent to
the amount of suffering caused by the criminal. However, according to him, the problem is still
not solved. It would nevertheless force the punisher to act barbarically by inflicting, in extreme
cases, an absurd amount of pain on the criminal. He additionally points out the fact that suffering
cannot be quantified and therefore, it would be impossible to produce an objective, agreed upon
scale to be used for this method.
Proportional retributivism is the idea that crimes should be measured on a scale of
severity, and in return, criminals would receive the equivalent punishment to the level of severity
of the crime committed. According to Nathanson, this method is much more rational due to its
lack of utilizing barbaric methods of punishment. He claims that it also does not provide support
for the death penalty. I, however, disagree with this part of his article. He does not clarify nor
give any explanation as to what type of penalties would be acceptable with proportional
