{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024458032240133407, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005558643690939411, 'mean_word_length': 5.2717770034843205, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Is Bradley a Retributivist?

Perhaps the least controversial area of F. H. Bradley's writings relates to his views on punishment. Commentators universally consider Bradley's theory of punishment to be a retributivist theory of punishment exclusively. Over his career, Bradley's most significant discussions of punishment appear in two publications: his Ethical Studies published in 1876 and in an article entitled 'Some Remarks on Punishment' published in an 1894 issue of the International Journal of Ethics. The vast majority of commentators on Bradley's views on punishment almost exclusively consider Bradley's Ethical Studies, rather than his later article. This paper challenges the received wisdom. I argue that Bradley does not endorse retributivism; but, rather, he defends the view that punishment is non-retributivist and serves the end of societal maintenance. Bradley defends this view in both his Ethical Studies and later article on punishment, demonstrating the consistency of his position. Thus, his views are not uniquely retributivist amongst British Idealists. Instead, Bradley's theory of punishment is similar to competing British Idealist theories of punishment - such as the theories of T. H. Green, Bernard Bosanquet, and James Seth Pringle-Pattison - in finding societal maintenance the highest aim of legal punishment. In addition to marking a significant break with previous interpretations of Bradley's views, this paper makes clear that Bradley's theory of punishment is firmly in a tradition of Hegelian philosophers writing in the 19th century in its affirmation of societal maintenance as the primary justification of punishment. Thus, the Bradley we find may be unfamiliar, but now far more consistent with the views of fellow British Idealists writing at his time.