Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Immanuel Kant Theory
Critical analysis of the death penalty
Immanuel Kant essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Immanuel Kant Theory
With such great minds and an awesome influence that seems boundless, how can there not be references to the works of Thomas Hobbes and Immanuel Kant. The Fundamental Principles in the Metaphysics of Morality is used by the minority dissenting opinion to reiterate the concepts of the intrinsic dignity of man. While the majority uses the literary work the Leviathan to support their own opinions. Transforming and uplifting the case of Gregg v. Georgia into an arena for a debate of Hobbian and Kant philosophies.
The majority claims that the death penalty serves two purposes, restitution and deterrence. Quoting the prior case of Fruman v. Georgia, that “The instinct for retribution is part of the nature of man and channeling that instinct in the administration of criminal justice serves an important purpose in promoting the stability of a society governed by laws. …
This is a classic statement that Hobbes himself could have possible uttered. For man is an awkward beast, driven by internal forces. The laws of nature. All men are equal and can perform equal acts of harm. Once harmed, he that who has been hurt will make attempts to revenge. Either in the name of just, duty, honor, or by any other word, it is an example of man conforming to his nature. To curb his nature by law is what the courts claim to be a stable society, Thomas Hobbes calls this a commonwealth under the Leviathan.
Deterrence, the power of the controlling entity to help guide and command those that its laws regulate against taking certain actions. Instilling fear within the hearts of man is a powerful and highly effective tool of leadership. As all men are equal this deterrence and creation of fear helps the Leviathan rule and have an edge over the citizens in the commonwealth.
Hobbes wants an ordered and just society. Where its people depend on the Leviathan for justice and protection. That is his reason for creating such commonwealth. His formula gives birth to a structured and organized society. According tot he courts a penalty such as that as death is a needed and essential law in an organized society that’s its citizens rely on legal process rather then self-help to vindicate their wrongs.
...
... middle of paper ...
...requires approval of retribution as a general justification for that punishment. Justice Marshall states in his dissenting opinion. It is the question whether retribution can provide moral justification for punishment. It simply defies belief to suggest that the death penalty is necessary to prevent the American people from taking the law into their own hands. Just as Justice Brennan has before, Marshall here fights retribution as cause for validity in the penalty of death. Using the same logic and formulas derived by Kant. Different examples and opinion but sill same results.
This case of Gregg v Georgia was an important trial to show us that we are forever redefining our standards and morals. Though our attitudes often changes they more often stay the same. This particular case holds this to some degree to be true. For may after their first publications, moral works here of Hobbes and Kant still help fuel some of the biggest debates in political, philosophical, and moral arenas. Each side, majority and the opposing dissent refer back to the mighty giants that with their little pens strokes brought down the mighty oaks.
The foremost aspects to consider from the Leviathan are Hobbes’s views on human nature, what the state of nature consists of, and what role morality plays. Hobbes assumes, taking the position of a scientist, that humans are “bodies in motion.” In other words, simple mechanical existences motivated solely to gain sati...
Capital punishment is most commonly known as the death penalty or punishment by death for a crime. It is a highly controversial topic and many people and great thinkers alike have debated about it. Two well-known figures are Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. Although both stand in favor of capital punishment, their reasons for coming to this conclusion are completely different. I personally stand against capital punishment, but my own personal view on it incorporates a few mixed elements from both individuals as well as my own personal insight. Firstly, in order to understand why Kant and Mill support capital punishment, we must first understand their views on punishment in general.
The first assumption is that nature has created man to be equal in their capacity to use their body and mind. With equal capacities in body, every man is vulnerable to attack from every other man and no single man has a superior advantage. For Hobbes this bolsters his claim that there is no man in the State of Nature with the power to maintain authority. Hobbes’s second assumption is that man has three principal desires, which drive conflict. These desires are competition, diffidence, and glory. All three of these desires involve man being involved in situations where only one man can come out victorious. For Hobbes these desires perpetuate the cycle of fear and v...
Self-preservation is the most fundamental desire in humans. Without laws or governance no one would be able to tell how or how not to try to stay alive. Hobbes argues that all humans are by nature equal in body and mind; therefore, everyone is naturally willing to fight each other if needed to. Every person has a natural right to do anything that they think is necessary for preserving their own life. For example: If in order for you to stay alive means you must shoot your friends who have become sick by a contagious plague, then that is the means necessary for your own self-preservation. Shooting your friends to protect your own life is not seen an unjust act. According to Hobbes, there is no room for morality because in a state of nature there is no space for the unjust. Everything is somehow justifiable. Hobbes calls this the Natural Right of Liberty. Furthermore, anything can be seen as a necessity in order to preserve one’s life. For example: If one doesn’t eat, then they won’t have enough sustenance which could then lead to death due to starvation. Eating is seen as a necessity needed to take in order to preserve ...
Kant’s moral philosophy is very direct in its justification of human rights, especially the ideals of moral autonomy and equality as applied to rational human beings. John Stuart Mills’ theory of utilitarianism also forms a solid basis for human rights, especially his belief that utility is the supreme criterion for judging morality, with justice being subordinate to it. The paper looks at how the two philosophers qualify their teachings as the origins of human rights, and comes to the conclusion that the moral philosophy of Kant is better than that of Mills. Emmanuel Kant Kant’s moral philosophy is built around the formal principles of ethics rather than substantive human goods. He begins by outlining the principles of reasoning that can be equally expected of all rational persons, regardless of their individual desires or partial interests.
His claim of human nature extends towards claiming that all humans are equal. Because everyone is equal, this gives each man ample opportunity to take anything that he desires from anyone else, or act in any way, in their desire to live a more comfortable life. Hobbes calls this the “natural condition”, where any man can do whatever he wants; everyone is free. However, due to the fact that everyone is free, it also remains that no one is free. If one man wishes to kill another, there is nothing stopping him from committing such an act, considering every man lives solely to fulfill his personal desires.
Therefore the location of the passage within the body of the text is especially significant because these core concepts inspire the development of his idea of establishing contracts in Part 2 of Leviathan. Progressing through his text Hobbes concludes that through a contract there should be a common sovereign authority. In upholding a contract Hobbes further embraces the establishment of a ‘commonwealth’ to escape the state of nature and to provide a common defense for...
Law is generally difficult to define as it emerges from so many sources and fulfills so many functions and different branches in a society. Yet it is objectively evident that the general purpose of law is to order society by means of prescriptive rules. Hobbes addressed the need for law and described a state of nature, ruled by instinct. He elaborates where society exisits without order the people would become extinct. Hence the people would willingly sacrifice their unlimited freedom to achieve protection from their fellow citizens.
In Hobbes’ work, he explained that if individuals within a society continually lived by their own self-interests, they would continue to hurt each other and be stuck in a "state of war," or chaos. If the members of society were made to live within certain bounds that made it impossible for them to harm each other, the members of society would be in a "state of peace." The only way to achieve this peaceful society, Hobbes explained, was for all members to unconditionally transfer all of their ability and will, to defend themselves to the power of a "big brother" or "parent." This power would accept responsibility for mediating all disputes concerning the society, both internal and external. If any member of society violates an agreement with another member of that society, then that individual would be guilty of violating their unconditional agreement to support the social contract, which would then render them unjust and subject to punishment. Conversely, if the "parent" violated its own responsibility to protect the members of the society, that society could then find itself another power to rule it. All of this comes down to the fact that Hobbes truly believed that man would act as savages or beasts if left alone w...
Morals are something that everyone has. Hobbes and Korsgaard both have their ideas and theories about morality. Whether those morals are what society says are right or wrong is up to the individual person to decide. Hobbes view is called egoism which says that everyone only acts out of self-interest, and that we cannot have obligations without authority. Korsgaard wants to not just explain those obligations we have to each other, but she also wants to justify them. In this essay I will talk about Hobbes and Korsgaard, and their differing positions on morality.
According to Hobbes, the state preceded the emergence of the so-called natural state, a state of absolute, unrestricted freedom of people equal in their rights and abilities. People are equal to each other and have all the same rights. Therefore, the natural state for Hobbes is, in the full sense, of "war of all against all." The absolute freedom of the individual is the pursuit of anarchy, chaos, and continuous struggle, which could seem as if it’s fair to hurt another human being.
Hobbes, on the other hand argues that justice is needed for people to live together in civil society. He outlines this idea down to human beings in the
Thomas Hobbes was an English philosopher who lived in the late 1500’s to the mid 1600’s. He had many philosophies and ideas about politics, religion, and more. Some of those important philosophies are now located in the book he wrote called the Leviathan. The Leviathan which depicts his perspective, talks about how a government should be governed and how the state of nature is like. In the book he describes the state of nature as “nasty, brutish, and short”(Lloyd). Another thing that Hobbes talks about in the state of nature is how a man is born evil. With this thought he talks more indepthly about how a man is made equal but would lead to violence (“Biographical Briefing on Thomas Hobbes”). This shows how
Both thinkers believe the fundamental drive and right for all is self-preservation and no one has natural authority over another. In particular, Hobbes claimed that without government oversight, inhabitants have the liberty to exercise their right to stay alive by doing whatever it takes, whether it’s stealing, attacking or killing others. This is why the Hobbesian state of nature is in a constant perpetual state of war since everyone’s self-interest is always conflicted with everyone else’s. As Hobbes concludes, “there can be no security to any man, how strong or wise soever he be, of living out the time which nature ordinarily alloweth men to live,” (ch 13). While it is not hard to defend Hobbes’s perspective, it’s too much of a pessimistic view of human nature. Are humans really as selfish and greedy that Hobbes claims them to be? I think not, even in a pre-societal/government oversight era. There are certainly individuals who have the ability to commit horrible acts of violence for their personal gain, but I don’t believe that occurs as frequently as Hobbes imagines it to be. Historically, while the traditional notion of survival is survival of the fittest, it can’t be done individually, it’s take a community to work together and watch out for each other. Furthermore, in the Hobbesian state of nature, morality
In short, Cattaneo contends that Hobbes’s notion of the end of punishment (“That the will of men may thereby the better be disposed to obedience”) distills the fundamental principles of a utilitarian penal theory (a system which would not see its inception until the work of Becarria and Bentham years later). Furthermore, Cattaneo attempts to establish a direct connection between Hobbes’s enumeration of the characteristics of proper punishment (e.g., the evil inflicted must exceed the benefit gained, evils inflicted with no thought to future benefit cannot be labeled punishment, etc.) and the principles of his utilitarian successors. While Cattaneo is unwilling to assert that Hobbes’s punishment theory contains all the necessary elements of a utilitarian-deterrence model, he is the first thinker to suggest that Hobbes “Opened up the road to a liberal concept of criminal law” (Cattaneo 1965,