First, I want to commend all the panelists for their efforts. I think this is a tremendous site that serves as an example of academia reaching out to the public. In my criminal law class, we are studying the purposes of punishment. We recently discussed Kant's deontological theory for why we should punish (as opposed to say a utilitarian theory, like deterrence). The argument is that Kant's theory is unconcerned with consequences. But, isn't his original moral code that binds the individual based on consequences? And if so, doesn't this undermine his theory of punishment? Thank you for your time.

No, it isn't. For him what makes an action right or wrong has nothing to do with the consequences. His original moral code is a rational principle that governs the morality of action, and that has nothing to do with consequences. We might argue about whether he is right or not, but I don't think we could really argue about what you call his original moral position on this.

Read another response by Oliver Leaman
Read another response about Philosophers, Punishment