More handpicked essays just for you.
Kant's theory on capital punishment
Utilitarianism compared to deontology
Utilitarianism compared to deontology
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Kant has a very extreme view on capital punishment that agrees with a retention point of view. Questions arise when discussing the death penalty such as is it a deterrent, does racial bias come into play and is life in prison a better choice. All of these questions are discussed by Kant, Cassell and Stevenson in detail. I agree very strongly with capital punishment and feel that it is a viable form of punishment when dealing with first degree murder. Kant holds a strong view that capital punishment is the only form of punishment that is suitable for murder. Kant states, “Criminals should be punished because they deserve to be punished, because they must receive their just deserts. And murderers deserve death, and a just society will punish
Retentionist are, “those who want to retain the death penalty as part of a system of legal punishment, who believe that sometimes capital punishment is warranted.” (348). Kant ‘s retributivism is, “the doctrine that people should be punished simply because they deserve it and that the punishment should be proportional to the crime.” (351). I feel that Kant’s retributivism is a good law to follow when deciding how to punish a guilty person to some extent. I feel that retributivism should be used to the fullest extent if the crime is murder or stealing; however, I feel that retributivism should not be used in the exact form as stated when dealing with other crimes such as rape. I feel that to have someone rape a rapist would not be moral or fair to the both parties and that life in prison
The consequentialist (usually utilitarian) arguments appeal to the good or bad consequences of capital punishment. The deontological arguments appeal to moral principles that hold independently of the consequences.” (350). Both of these views are extremely different but they both have a view on why capital punishment is moral and why capital punishment is immoral. Consequentialist argue for the death penalty by stating, “it either prevents criminals from harming others again or deters would-be offenders from capital crimes.” (350). Deontological people argue for the death penalty through retributivism which states that the punishment should resemble the crime, meaning that if you kill a person the only just punishment would be for the guilty person to be killed. One way a Consequentialist argues against the death penalty is, “that life in prison for murderers result in greater overall happiness or goodness for society than sentencing them to death.” (351). Human life for consequentialists holds great value so by keeping someone alive it brings more happiness. A deontological view can be taken to argue against the death penalty by affirming that, “human beings have inherent value and dignity, all persons have a right to life, punishment should be fair (and the use of capital punishment discriminates against minorities and the poor), or the punishment should fit the crime (and
In the argument for abolishing or retention of the death penalty, Igor Primoratz took the Pro-retributivism stand for the retention of the death penalty. In Primoratz’s “A Life for A Life,” he argues against the abolitionists utilitarianism stand on the issue of the death penalty. Primoratz argues on the premises that- (a) “Punishment is morally Justified insofar as it is meted out as retribution for offense committed” (Primoratz 356.) (b) Death is the only proportional punishment for murder; (c) Death is the only effective deterrence measure for murder. In response to Primoratz choice to use Kant’s Retributivism argument as the basis for his pro-retention argument for the death penalty, similarly Kant’s Categorical Imperative will be used as a measuring stick to validate or refute Primoratz’s argument for the retention of the death penalty.
The death penalty in American society using the deontological and teleological argument is in the deontological perspective, believes that the death penalty is a morally appropriate punishment and also views capital punishment as being immoral. In deontological argument, it will place moral emphasis on the intentions of his or her actions. The deontological ethics does not focus on the actual consequences. A deontological defense of punishment is likely to be a retributive justification. According to Kant, he believes in the retributive punishment, which is known as the idea of “an eye for an eye”, meaning the law says that we should punish someone not because what they did was wrong, but to just punish them for the sake of punishing.
There are many points of view that can be used when talking about capital punishment. From a consequentialist retentionist’s point of view, the death penalty prevents future crimes from occurring, because those who have the want/need to commit crimes would fear capital punishment and those
When viewing capital punishment in light of retributive justice, Kant's "Respect for Persons" ethics can be applied in order to uphold the retentionist argument. Capital punishment continues to be a growing controversial topic in society and is an important ethical dilemma to discuss. It can most prominently be supported by Kant's "Respect for Persons" ethics which when applied to the practice of capital punishment implies that it is morally acceptable in the sense that it gives people what they deserve. Additionally, despite consistent arguments by those who oppose capital punishment, the death penalty appears to be the most practical practice of punishment granted certain conditions.
Consequentialism is a punishment theory that provides moral justification for punishment by taking into account future consequences and by weighing the intrinsic value of a punishment against other available alternatives. The primary rationale for punishment is to bring the most good over harm, to deter or prevent crimes from occurring in the first place and to prevent future crimes from being committed. Utilitarianism would even consider punishing the innocent or pass a more severe sentence for a lesser crime if it could be determined that benefits to society outweighed the consequences of such punishment (Howard). For example, if it were believed that better crime deterrence or prevention could be achieved, a consequentialist would consider executing a murderer versus handing down a life sentence. Retributivism is a punishment theory that looks back at the specific nature of a crime and determines how much the victim suffered, in order to morally justify the severity of punishment. The moral emphasis is on righting a wrong and seeking justice by ensuring that criminals get what the...
Many positions can be defended when debating the issue of capital punishment. In Jonathan Glover's essay "Executions," he maintains that there are three views that a person may have in regard to capital punishment: the retributivist, the absolutist, and the utilitarian. Although Glover recognizes that both statistical and intuitive evidence cannot validate the benefits of capital punishment, he can be considered a utilitarian because he believes that social usefulness is the only way to justify it. Martin Perlmutter on the other hand, maintains the retributivist view of capital punishment, which states that a murderer deserves to be punished because of a conscious decision to break the law with knowledge of the consequences. He even goes as far to claim that just as a winner of a contest has a right to a prize, a murderer has a right to be executed. Despite the fact that retributivism is not a position that I maintain, I agree with Perlmutter in his claim that social utility cannot be used to settle the debate about capital punishment. At the same time, I do not believe that retributivism justifies the death penalty either.
Proponents of capital punishment believe that killing criminals is a moral and ethical way of punishing them. They feel there is justification in taking the life of a certain criminal, when in fact that justification is nothing more than revenge. They also feel that the death penalty deters crime, although there have been no conclusive studies confirming that viewpoint (Bedau).
Seventeenth century philosopher, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) best summarized the justification for capital punishment with his theory of retributivism. In a famous passage, Kant says: “Even if a civil society resolved to dissolve itself with the consent of all its members--as might be supposed in the case of a people inhabiting an island resolving to separate and scatte
According to Brian O’Neill, “On one hand, it has a righteous appeal as the only fitting punishment for the most egregious crimes. On the other, it is arguably hypocritical to use the underlying crime itself as punishment for the act” (Balancing Ethics and the Death Penalty). This quote argues how there are two sides and that there is no equal punishment to murder besides murder in itself. But at the same time, to commit a crime as a punishment for the same crime is very hypocritical and essentially supports the crime. This is a major issue because although capital punishment has the possibility to solve the problem, as in it makes certain there will be no re-offenders, it also stands as a negative influence because it gives the idea that murder is acceptable in society. When considering if murder is unethical, one should also consider the moral side of it. Claire Andre and Manuel Velasquez believe that, “The case against capital punishment is often made on the basis that society has a moral obligation to
There are many pros to the death penalty. Some claim that there is a preventative effect on potential murderers, although there is a lot of debate about this and just about every other argument for or against capital punishment. Another is the idea of incapacitation. Truthfully, why should someone have the right to live if they have taken that right from another person? The purpose why this writer supports capital punishment is because in observing victims’ families and their grief over murdered loved ones. This writer believes anyone who murders should be put to death. One reason for this is because people should not have the right to live after they have killed a fellow human being. The death penalty is a topic dealing with ethics, a set of moral principles or values. This issue is constantly filled with mix feelings and attitudes which the writer will attempt to present in the following paragraphs.
The capital punishment has been cited as a reasonable sentence by those who advocate for retribution. This is essentially when it comes to justice so that people take full responsibility for their individual actions. Studies have proved that the decision to take away life of a person because they committed a certain crime serves to perpetuate the crime in question. It also serves to enhance the progress of organized and violent crime. It has been noted that various flaws in the justice system has led to the wrong conviction of innocent people. On the other hand, the guilty have also been set free, and a plethora of several cases has come up when a critical look at the capital punishment has been undertaken. Killers hardly kill their victims deliberately, but they probably act on anger, passion, or impulsively. In this regard, it is not proper to convict them exclusively without
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.
Hopefully I’ve made the point that the death penalty is useless except for delivering some sort of closure to a victims’ loved ones, through this type of closure is morally wrong, and can be achieved through life imprisonment of the murderer. And because capital punishment is not an effective deterrent, because life imprisonment is a better option, and because the innocent wouldn’t have to die; capital punishment should be abolished.
While we may all want murders off the street, the problem we come to face is that capital punishment is being used for vengeance or as a deterrent. Capital punishment has been used worldwide, not only by the governments to instill fear, but to show that there are repercussions to ones actions. From the time we are born, we are taught to learn the difference between right and wrong. It is ingrained in our brains, what happens to people that do bad things? Capital punishment is renowned for being the worst thing that could be brought amongst ones life.
Arguments for capital punishment include general and specific deterrence and retribution. At the foundation of the support of capital punishment is deterrence. Specific deterrence states that if a condemned individual is put to death, then they will not break the law ever again. General deterrence states that if the rest of society sees a murderer being executed, then everyone in society will refrain from committing murder due to fearing the ramifications of the act. Retribution is punishing an offender as severely as possible for a crime, and in this case, death is the most severe punishment.