In his article, “Two Concepts of Rules”, John Rawls explains one sense in which judicial punishment might be justified by Retributivism. Immanuel Kant believes that judicial punishment is justified by Retributivism, but it’s doubtful he would be accept Rawls’ account. Why wouldn’t he? In your essay you should do the following:
-Explain Rawls’ argument for the claim that judicial punishments are retributively justified.
-Explain what Kant means when he says that judicial punishments are justified (or required) by retributivism.
-Explain what Kant would think about the way Rawls defends Retributivism.  And defend your view that that's what  Kant would think.
-Rawls considers a concern that might be raised by someone who has a retributivist view more like Kant’s. What is that concern? What is Rawls’ response? Is Rawls’ response is satisfactory?
-If you have space, explain which philosopher, Rawls or Kant, does a better job of defending his position. Note: The question of who does a better job of defending his view is different from the question of who is right.