Advocates of death penalty argue that death penalty is the need of the time as homicides and serious offences are at an increasing rate and that the provision for capital punishment can act as the strongest corrective measure or deterrence. Similarly, the retributive belief that death penalty is essential to preserve retributive justice whereby murderers get the full punishment they deserve and the utilitarian argument that death penalty deters or is necessary to incapacitate prospective criminals have also emphasized the need for capital punishments. On the other hand, the major argument against death penalty is that it is against human rights, ethics and morality. The supporters of the argument hold that death penalty cannot be justified as man has no right to take away the life of anyone. This paper seeks to address the issue of capital punishment in the light of Kant's deontology and his concept of duty based ethics comprising of the categorical imperatives. Kant's concept of 'duty-based' ethics is strongly rooted in his deontological ethical approach where he stresses on certain principles and rules that we ought to respect, even if the consequences are not beneficial for the greatest number. For Kant, one should possess reverence for the universal law which forms the basis for moral values and ethics. It can be seen that Kant’s deontological ethics emphasizes both reason and obligation; his perpetuation of duty based ethics accounts that the person’s actions are performed from duty or obligation towards the universal moral law rather than from any other inclinations. Kant postulated two underlying principles or categorical imperatives to guide everyone through the right ethical framework and for him one can fulfill one’s duty based ethics only when one is moved by these categorical imperatives. Kant’s categorical imperatives are quite anthropocentric in nature. However, Kant also postulates that there could be real conflicts among duties when there are conflicts between one’s moral duties and self-interests. On the other hand, Kant believes in the superiority of the universal moral law and makes it clear that moral duties rarely conflict; rather our self-interests tend to conflict with our duties. It is worthwhile to analyze Kant’s categorical imperatives and how these could be applied to the issue of capital punishment. Kant’s deontological ethics presupposes a universal law of morality that is quite categorical, flawless and universal without exception. The first categorical imperative formulates: act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. This exhorts people to keep themselves away from any actions or values that do not lead them to the universal law of morality. The first categorical imperative becomes problematic as people’s conception of universal law is quite subjective and these are influenced by conflicts of duties as well as conflicts of self-interests. This casts shadows on what is morally permissible. The second formulation of CI sounds more practical as it asks to treat all persons as ends, and never as means only. As such the second principle respect and regard persons as self-determining rational beings who act for their own purposes. Applying Kantian deontology to the issue of capital punishment it is significant to understand whether the given punishment treats people as means or ends. As such, it can be inferred that inflicting punishment on the convicted as part of deterrence regards the person as a means and cannot therefore be regarded as ethical in Kantian view. On the other han
This paper seeks to address the issue of capital punishment in the light of Kant's deontology and his concept of duty based ethics comprising of the categorical imperatives…
Some raise questions over ethical acceptability of the issue as well. The societies have in the past punished the criminals by sentencing them to death but now with the modernization of the world, there are many nations which have abolished the death penalty.
In addition, the US is seemingly unconcerned with the fact that such punishment is barbaric and violative of moral values (Hinton, 2009). Discussion Capital punishment is inhumane and entails physical torture. Capital punishment leaves much to be desired in the US.
and ‘is it ever right to kill?’. Philosophers and thinkers have been struggling with these same questions for thousands of years. Somewhat surprisingly in a field where many experts disagree with each other, three of the greatest pillars of Western Philosophy over the past two thousand years, Aristotle, John Stuart Mill and Emmanuel Kant are all staunchly in favour of the death penalty as a punishment for murder.
Sustein and Vermeule (704) points out that most refutations to capital punishment are based on the points that it is “inherently cruel and barbaric”, and cannot be imposed in any way possible that adheres to the rule of law, and as it is administered currently, it could lead to the execution of some innocent people.
As a result, society developed systems of punishing those who commit serious crimes such as killing, stealing felony among others. One such way of punishing offenders was death penalty. Ideally, the authorities came up with procedures to be used in determining the crimes that warrant death penalty, the steps to be followed while executing individuals among others.
According to Robert Ruby’s “Capital Punishment’s Constant Constituency: An American Majority,” capital punishment has long since been a heated topic of debate of fairness and of constitutional rights and ethics. Between the years of 1972 and 2007, the Supreme Court has gone through many moments of indecision in concerns of the capital punishment.
Supporters of capital punishment are of the view that in the absence of capital punishment, people may engage in more criminal activities. In their opinion, crime rates cannot be controlled without strong
The practice is not uniform across the states in the US. Some of the states do not allow capital punishment while others have the law permitting capital punishment. However, execution procedures may differ. As of May 2013, the District of Columbia and 18 other States have abolished the capital punishment for any kind of crime whatsoever.
Different punishments are recommended for different criminal acts but the position of capital punishment spurs up controversy if weighed against the ethical considerations and the serenity of life. The dilemma with capital punishment is that it undertakes to protect
4 pages (1000 words)Essay
Get a custom paper written by a pro under your requirements!
Win a special DISCOUNT!
Put in your e-mail and click the button with your lucky finger
Apply my DISCOUNT
Got a tricky question? Receive an answer from students like you!Try us!
Didn't find an essay?
Contact us via Live Chat, call us at +16312120006or send an email to email@example.com