A rehabilitation theory of punishment 

A retributive theory of punishment

Immanuel Kant's theory of punishment

A deterrence theory of punishment

It is impossible to determine whether an offender deserves punishment - not all actions are freely chosen. 

Matthew (5:38-41): “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

Punishing criminals bring about more harm than good.

Punishing criminals does not successfully deter crime.

What are the main factors that motivate people to commit crimes? Does punishment deter or encourage crime?

When is it morally justified to punish an offender, and how should offenders be punished for particular offences?

Why do all human societies utilise methods of punishment? What evolutionary purpose does punishment serve?

Which methods of punishment are most successful in deterring and preventing crime, and why?

No.  The penalties should be equally harsh, because that will really deter people from using cannabis.  And if there are fewer users, the suppliers will go out of business. 

No. Cannabis is a gateway drug, so people who use cannabis will soon move on to other drugs, like alcohol and meth. The cannabis manufacturer will just keep on supplying cannabis, because that's their expertise.    

Yes, if the state is successful in discouraging people from cultivating and dealing cannabis, then it should also result in fewer people using cannabis.  (Obviously.)  

Yes, by cultivating and dealing cannabis the offender harms other people, so they deserve to be punished.  But the cannabis user doesn't harm anyone, except perhaps themselves. So they shouldn't be punished at all, really.

It is inhumane to punish people. Criminality is an illness, and criminals deserve to be treated with respect. 

Utilitarianism would justify punishing innocent people if doing so brings about the greatest amount of good, and this is obviously wrong.

Some criminals cannot be rehabilitated, so they should be imprisoned for life. 

Even the best penal system ends up producing more harm than good. 

Using someone else's idea doesn't deprive them of their idea.

None of these are problematic - plagiarism just is stealing of ideas.

People don't mind if you use their ideas - but they do mind if you take their property without asking.

Ideas are intangible, so there is no way to profit from their use.

Using an AI tool is like using a pencil: it is just another tool.

AI tools are not good at writing philosophy.

Allowing students to use AI tools will end in teachers using them to mark, and eventually result in the loss of their own jobs.

None of the other answers are correct: Taylor thinks it is permissible for teachers to accept AI written work from students. In fact, he thinks students should be encouraged to make use of AI at university.

Allowing the use of AI tools results in the institution making a false claim about the ability of the student.

When students cheat they end up in the habit of cheating and taking short-cuts, and in the long run this makes their lives worse.

Cheating is like speeding.

If students cheat at subjects that require competent professionals skills, such as medicine and engineering, then we will end up with professionals who cannot execute their professional duties correctly, and that will be bad for society.

I have a strong intuitive feeling that cheating is wrong.

If everyone cheated, it would undermine the very purpose of the activity being performed, so that the activity itself would fail.

The intention of the agent is relevant when assessing the permissibility of some actions, but it is not relevant for plagiarism

The intention of the agent is irrelevant to an act's permissibility

The intention of the agent is relevant when assessing the permissibility of some actions, and plagiarism is one of those

The intention of the agent is always relevant to an act's permissibility