Retributivism is often explicitly or implicitly assumed to be compatible with the harm principle, since the harm principle (in some guises) concerns the content of the criminal law, while retributivism concerns the punishment of those that break the law. In this essay I show that retributivism should not be endorsed alongside any version of the harm principle. In fact, retributivists should reject all attempts to see the criminal law only through “other” person-affecting concepts or “grievance” morality, since they should endorse the criminalization of conduct that is either purely self-harming or good for somebody and bad for nobody (i.e., Pareto improvements).