Capital Punishment : Light Of The Natural Law

Capital punishment has been a controversial issue that still exists in America today. Capital punishment is a law passed by the government to punish any individual that has been convicted of committed a heinous crime. The death penalty has been a method used throughout history as punishment for criminals. The punishment also known as the death penalty is a scheduled execution, which would be done with lethal injection. The reason why this punishment is chosen is because when crimes are committed that shock the conscience, the immediate emotional reaction is to retaliate with severe punishment (Schnurbush 2016). The death penalty is debated when it is brought up, opinions vary from one group of people to another, one side says the execution is murder, and the other saying that it is justice being done. Each side presents valid arguments to why people should be for it or against it; people’s opinions are formed by personal beliefs.

Capital punishment, otherwise known as the death penalty, is a controversial subject which has been argued for decades due to the ethical decisions involved. People believe the death penalty is the right thing to do and that it is the perfect example of ‘justice’ while others believe that it is immoral and overly expensive. The death penalty is not a logical sentence for criminals, it doesn’t give them the right type of justice and it is immoral.

The debate on whether or not the death penalty should be abolished has been ongoing for quite a long period of time. While there are those who believe that the death penalty does not serve its intended purpose, proponents of the same are convinced that the relevance of the same cannot be overstated and hence it should not be abolished. In this text, I examine the arguments for and against the death penalty.

Capital punishment is a sentence that is given to someone that has committed a capital crime. This is a subject of great debate; some people agree and some do not. There are times when a crime is so heinous that the majority would seek capital punishment. Susan Gissendaner received this sentence for plotting to kill her husband, although her boyfriend actually killed her husband. Since being in prison, Susan has undergone a conversion and transformation. She is now a model prisoner. Due to Susan’s transformation, they are trying to have her sentence changed. Should Susan’s sentence be commuted to life in prison is the question being asked? This paper will answer the question by providing a moral judgment viewed by two non-consequentialist theories. The strengths and weaknesses of these positions will be assessed. Whether I agree or disagree will be answered and explained.

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

In his famous work Summa Theologiae an incorporation of Aristotelian philosophical insights modified by the Hebraic and Islamic philosophers into the developed theology of the Christian Fathers and Doctors of the Church especially Augustine; Aquinas suggested that natural law is a habit and not an act. According to him the human soul has three constructs; powers, habits and emotions. Natural law is not an emotion or a power but a habit. Conscience which Aquinas calls Synderesis is the law of human intellect. Aquinas maintains that conscience is a habit hence natural law is itself a habit as it is constituted by reason. Natural law belongs to the genus of precept and abides in human beings and it has only one founding precept upon which other precepts are based i.e. good is to be done and evil is to be avoided, “bonum facendum et proseguendum et malu evitandum” (Summa Theologiae, Article 2). Natural law results from the nature of human beings. Human nature as a whole is one, because of unity of the whole there is only one precept of natural law. Aquinas argues that law (lex) belongs to reason and there is only one power of reason in human beings which is conscience or

St. Tomas Aquinas was a natural law theorist like

It is imperative to understand Aquinas’ definition of just and unjust laws. Through defining these terms, we will be able to understand Aquinas’ claim. A law that is just has the power of “binding in conscience” (Aquinas in Dimock, ed., 2002, p.20). It is derived from eternal law and therefore inherently morally correct. An unjust law lacks this integral quality. Aquinas is willing to say that an unjust law is a so-called law, but a just law is a law proper in its entirety.

Aquinas idea was influenced by Christian theology and Aristotle, he believed that God was the answer to all. He helped to establish natural law. He combined faith and reason, he believed God was completely rational and gave people the choice on earth to act rational. Which means they have the choice to do the right thing and not do wrong. So as healthcare administrators we are trusted to do the right thing at all times for the patient. Because the patient comes first so in our profession we should chose to do the right thing for the patient even if it means sacrificing extra money or

Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) was an Italian Catholic priest, philosopher, and theologian. Aquinas’s natural law theory is based on early Christianity. His idea of natural law theory comes from, God is eternal being and rural of everything. God created all things good because God is good. Humans are created in the image of God and are good and thus seek good and avoid evil. The questions arise what is good and evil? How do we know what to do and what not to do? When to do it and when not to do it?

Saint Thomas Aquinas was an italian preist of the dominican order. He was a scholastic philosipher and theoligan who was concerned with natural law and the relationship between god and man. He taught the four laws between god and man: eternal Law, Natural law, human law, and divine law.

Aquinas believed that God allowed the realization of natural laws to be derived from eternal laws through the rationality that He gave His creations. Aquinas stated that “the natural law is promulgated by God when he implants it in the minds of human beings so that they know it by nature,” (Aquinas, page 16). Aquinas devised that all laws fell into specific categories that were ordered relative to their distance from God’s eternal law. The importance of natural law for Aquinas was found within what it provided to humanity; the guidance from God on what should be considered good or evil. Quoting Romans 2:14, Aquinas noted that “although they do not have the written law, they have a natural law, whereby each of them understands and is conscious of good and evil,” (Aquinas, page 18). This knowledge was twofold according to Aquinas; it provided mankind with the general guidance that God wanted us to follow (the primary percepts) and allowed for the creation of more specific human law (the secondary precepts). He stated “…human reason needs to advance from the precepts of the natural law, as general and indemonstrable first principles, to matters that are to be more particularly regulated,” (Aquinas, page 19). Thus, Aquinas saw natural law as the product of utilizing reason to decipher God’s commands from eternal law, which in turn

Aquinas’s view of Natural Law includes a more religious focus than Aristotle’s, as he considers every moral law to be a derivation of eternal law. This eternal law is God’s way of governing human beings toward the common basic goods (Murphy).

Aquinas defines “Natural Law” as the sharing from within of the Eternal Law. “The natural law” is just the rational person’s involvement in the eternal law. This involvement is available to all persons independently of any belief on their part in God. The natural law is observed whenever people both engage in correct practical reasoning about what is good and best for them in any given situation and when they act in accordance with that natural inclination.

St Thomas Aquinas developed Natural Law theory from Aristotle and the Stoics in the 13th century. Natural Law is an absolutist and deontological theory. To believe and use Natural Law theory, one has to believe in God because Natural Law believes there is one Natural Law which has been issued by God. This means that what is wrong in one situation is wrong in ever situation and to determine what is right and wrong we look at the action itself, not the consequences. There is emphasis on innate human reason to work out how you should be living. Natural law is useful on issues where is the Bible is silent e.g. IVF.In order to use Natural Law correctly we need to identify what is known as the primary precepts. These are the basis of the theory. We need to first agree that these are the main function of life. The primary precepts are the five purposes of human life. The five primary precept are: (i) reproduction (ii) life – to live/ the supreme good (iii) education – makes people independent and fully adult (iv) worshipping God and (v) law and order – upholds justice. These precepts are immutable; they cannot be changed. From the primary precepts, secondary precept form. For example if we examine the principle of life and it is there to ensure that all actions which are life threatening are in the moral law as wrong e.g. murder, abortion, euthanasia, suicide etc are all wrong because the involve going against the precept of life.However, in reality it is not as easy as one action