Abstract

Since punishment involves the deliberate imposition of suffering, it is plainly in need of justification. Many theories, or combinations of theories, have been proposed in an effort to provide such justification. Central to several proposals is the retributivist idea that the guilty deserve to be punished and that this fact justifies, or helps justify, their being punished. In _The Right and the Good_, W. D. Ross offers a brief but trenchant critique of retributivism. Although he accepts the claim that the guilty deserve to be punished, he argues that a retributivist approach to punishment is impracticable and should therefore not be attempted. This chapter accepts Ross's conclusion but objects to portions of his argument for it. A revised version of his argument is then proposed. This version turns crucially on considerations concerning luck, considerations that at best play only a peripheral role in Ross's original argument.