morality of capital punishment Essay

1) How would Kant reason with the morality of capital punishment? Describe how deontological ethics would determine whether it is morally permissible Kant is an advocate of the idea that the morality of an action is to be determined not by the extent of the pleasure or pain an act produces. Consider for example the imposition of capital punishment. According to Kant, if the utility of imposing capital punishment will be our guide then we will be doing a serious crime against humanity. Justice will not be served if we will subject to capital punishment a convict simply because we aim to deter crime, incapacitate the criminal and protect the society. Instead, capital punishment should be imposed because the person is guilty. It must be stressed that Kant upheld the right of the state to impose capital punishment against those proven guilty of committing heinous crimes. He however argued that the sole criterion and standard should be his guilt and that the punishment should be proportionate to the crime committed. That reason for this is that when a person commits a crime against another it is as if he is telling the whole world that he wants to be treated the same way. According to Kant, â€Å"If you slander another, you slander yourself; if you steal from another, you steal from yourself; if you strike another, you strike yourself; if you kill another, you kill yourself. † (Immanuel Kant, the Right of Punishing) This is the principle otherwise known as the right of retaliation or Jus Talionis. This is actually a restatement of Kant’s Deontological Ethics known as the Categorical Imperative. This is the principle that morality is based on pure reason which is in the nature of an absolute command. Kant states that: â€Å"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. † (Garth Kemerling) If a person decides to do something to another then he does this thinking that the same should be a universal law. In effect murderers are saying that this is how people should be treated, including himself. Thus, if a person commits murder then he must also die. There is no other substitute for such a heinous crime except capital punishment. It is only by taking away the life of the person who committed the crime of murder that justice will be restored. 2. How would Mill determine if capitol punishment is morally justified? Describe how Utilitarian Ethics would determine whether capitol punishment is morally permissible Mill, on the other hand, argued that state-sanctioned punishment is justified because of its utility. There is only one standard in determining the morality for the imposition of capital punishment – that is its consequence. If capital punishment will most likely produce the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness then the punishment is justified. But if there are other options that would produce a greater balance of happiness over unhappiness, then that option should be chosen and the imposition of capital punishment is unjustified. In simpler terms, the idea is that if we weigh the positive effects of capital punishment as against its negative effects and the positive effects outweighs the negative ones then it has to be imposed. This theory somewhat looks forward and determines the positive impact of the act to the society. According to Mill, capital punishment is the most humane punishment possible for someone who has committed a heinous crime. A quick and painless death is always better than working in hard labor while in prison for the rest of the life of the convict, to wit: â€Å"What comparison can there really be, in point of severity, between consigning a man to the short pang of a rapid death, and immuring him in a living tomb, there to linger out what may be a long life in the hardest and most monotonous toil, without any of its alleviations or rewards–debarred from all pleasant sights and sounds, and cut off from all earthly hope, except a slight mitigation of bodily restraint, or a small improvement of diet. (John Stuart Mill) Capital Punishment is also beneficial for the society because it deters the commission of the crime not only by the convict himself but by other persons as well. It sends a clear message to would-be murderers that the state has a strong policy against crime. Although it may not be able to deter all hardened criminals, but it is capable of preventing persons other than criminals from committing crimes. Capital punishment will also provide a closure to the agony of the relatives of the victims and satisfy their grievance for their relative. Conclusion Both philosophers argue in favor of the morality of capital punishment. Their conclusions are the same only that their premises start from different end. For Kant, capital punishment should be allowed against those who commit heinous crimes simply because they are guilty. For Mill, capital punishment should be imposed because it is better for the convict and the society as well.