Aristotle & Mill on Capital Punishment

Inviting the reader to explore diverse ways of thinking about the morality of capital punishment. First, foundationally the death penalty seems moral, the act of wrongdoing results in wrongdoing being done upon the actor. However, this is a very hypocritical and barbaric way of punishment for a human being. One of the main purposes of prisons was to strip criminals of their rights and keep them secluded from society, which is a serious punishment in and of itself. It is extremely unnecessary to take away a person’s life, regardless of what crime they committed.

Capital punishment has been a hot topic for quite some time now. In earlier times it was merely a way to punish as well as an attempt to deter members of society from committing heinous crimes. In the last century we have actively monitored the effects of capital punishment, and this has revealed the truth. It is for these reasons capital punishment is not morally acceptable.

Mill focuses more on the second of the two as the most effective justification of the death penalty. Mill states in his address “There is not, I should think, any human infliction which makes an impression on the imagination so entirely out of proportion to its real severity as the punishment of death.” Crime in itself causes suffering, to reduce crime by creating a fear of penalty is a utilitarian practice.

“The Penalty of Death” is an essay written by H. L. Mencken that discusses his positive view on the death penalty. Mencken feels strongly for the death penalty and makes arguments in contradiction of commonalities against the death penalty. Mencken also explains Aristotle’s view of catharsis and how he believes this is a reason people still give the death penalty. Along with this argument, Mencken also makes a statement against how long humans put off capital punishment from the time it is given to the time it is faced.

The implementation of these laws are very significant as they are the foundation of a nation or a society. Therefore, whoever violates these laws and opposes the social order of that society must be deemed guilty and must be punished. For Kant, punishment is retribution in its legal form. John Stuart Mill as well supported the capital punishment but his view is different from Immanuel Kant. According to Mill, the death penalty is instrumental in a society, and it is the least cruel mode of punishment to deter crimes. Mill believed the severity of a punishment is intended to cause fear, therefore preventing crimes. Therefore, both the theory of utilitarianism and deontology permit capital punishment to be morally

The popular idea of social contract, that society was something that people in some way agreed to be a part of, and that defined rights as things people agreed to have protected by society, and duties as things people would agree to take obligation over, Mill did not agree with. Due to his disagreement with this idea, the argument that because people receive certain protection of society, they owed certain conduct in return did not work in favor of his argument. Mill instead uses the argument that in the case that people do not conduct themselves appropriately, as long as they don’t violate anyone else’s rights, but do in some way “harm” another individual, they should only be censured by opinions, not by the law in any way. Mill showed his strong disapproval for the interference of law in people’s actions, which were only affecting that specific individual. This idea meant that if a person was distantly impacted by a person’s actions such as death, or illness due to poor

The history of our world is filled with countless controversies that have sparked arguments amongst people. Debates ranging from human rights to abortion provoke disputes among many countries. The most contested opposition between people is unquestionably capital punishment. Capital punishment was widely applied in ancient times throughout the world. We have been using the principle of capital punishment since almost 18th Century BC, possibly even before that. While some people argue that it is immoral and against human rights, others see it as a perfect opportunity to

Mill 's moral approaches are based around Utilitarianism. The purpose of utilitarianism is to maximize happiness and pleasure and minimize pain, therefore, it bases moral choices on their end results. There are two types of utilitarianism- act utilitarianism, which focuses on an individual’s actions and rule utilitarianism, which bases the morality of a decision on whether or not the decision abides by a general moral code.

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.

Capital punishment is one of the most controversial topics in today’s world. Many people believe that it is morally wrong to have capital punishment as a sentence to a crime. People also do believe that it is morally permissible for a severe crime. Capital punishment is also known as the death penalty. It can be given as a sentence when somebody is convicted of an extremely violent crime. The biggest issue that can be seen with this is that somebody could be innocent and sentenced with the death penalty because of the nature of the crime that they have been accused of even if they didn’t commit it. I believe that there is a moral line between using the death penalty and using other forms of punishment.

Capital punishment is a difficult subject for a lot of people because many question whether or not it is ethical to kill a convicted criminal. In order to critically analyze whether or not it is ethical, I will look at the issue using a utilitarianism approach because in order to get a good grasp of this topic we need to look at how the decision will impact us in the future. The utilitarianism approach will help us to examine this issue and see what some of the consequences are with this topic of capital punishment. For years, capital punishment has been used against criminals and continues to be used today, but lately this type of punishment has come into question because of the ethical question.

In the United States, the use of the death penalty continues to be a controversial issue. Every election year, politicians, wishing to appeal to the moral sentiments of voters, routinely compete with each other as to who will be toughest in extending the death penalty to those persons who have been convicted of first-degree murder. Both proponents and opponents of capital punishment present compelling arguments to support their claims. Often their arguments are made on different interpretations of what is moral in a just society. In this essay, I intend to present major arguments of those who support the death penalty and those who are opposed to state sanctioned executions application . However, I do intend to fairly and accurately

This paper compares and contrasts the two different ethical perspectives for and against Capital Punishment. Capital Punishment is a very sensitive subject because it touches on many important topics such as justice, costs, humaneness and religion. People have different perspectives on these topics so it’s hard for everyone to agree on what we think the right thing is.

The issue of capital punishment involves analyzing the morals that are used to justify its implementation or rejection. There is no one “correct” set of morals, making this issue extremely divisive. For instance, it is arguable that the punishment for a crime should be comparable to the crime committed. However, one may counter by asking who decides what is a comparable punishment for a crime and how can one go about ensuring that no undeserved punishment is being practiced. Thus, because the discussion of the issue elicits various views about how effective punishments are and what is morally “right or wrong,” it is difficult to reach a consensus about what the appropriate stance on the

Capital punishment has always been an urging matter. In television shows it is seen all the time. Game of Thrones, for example, is a widely popular show with billions of adoring fans. It is also extremely bloody and with its own set of rules for justice. In the show, execution is performed in public to enforce deterrence. By sentencing death to a criminal, the authority enforces its power, stops others from making the same crimes, and demonstrates political dissent. Capital punishment is the dilemma that is constantly revisited. On one hand, it is not difficult to see all the negative characteristics it holds. Human beings are not the ones who can make this kind of decision. Depending on one’s religious views, it is believed that capital punishment is a right reserved to God, karma, time or any other superior being. However, unlike Game of Thrones, there is a well-established justice system that ensures fair trials and serves a death sentence when it is absolutely necessary. Capital punishment is the most superior and fair form of retribution, and support for these notions can be seen in the Jewish Bible, The Christen bible, Glaspell’s Trifles, the trial Gregg v. Georgia, and Snow Falling on Cedars.