Nathan Hanna PhD, assistant professor of philosophy

Abstract: Many philosophers think that when someone deserves something, it's intrinsically good that she get it or there's a non-instrumental reason to give it to her. Call this the "standard view." Retributivist arguments for punishment often assume the standard view. In this paper, I present evidence that there are widespread intuitions about desert, value, and reasons that are inconsistent with the standard view. I argue that this poses a serious challenge to the retributivist arguments at issue. And I conclude that retributivists must do more to show that the desert claims that they appeal to have the implications that they think.