Kant On Capital Punishment

Kant would disagree with those who do the right thing for the wrong reason. We, as a society and individuals in that society, should act in ways not because it’s easy for us or more favourable, but because its right and moral.

Many contend that the death penalty is morally impermissible due to some irreversible miscarriages of justices . However, capital punishment can be defended in both consequentialist and deontological terms. Kantian ethics claims that, for exceptionally heinous crimes committed with malice aforethought, the penalty of death is not only morally justifiable but is morally obligatory. Consequentialists can substantiate the use of capital punishment through the claim that the death penalty is more effective than other more moderate punishments in averting the murder of innocents through inducing the fear of consequences in

Alternatively, Paternoster (2010), suggested that Bentham displayed a more developed deterrence theory model of human conduct. Bentham identified that human behavior is directed by the pursuance of pleasure and the evasion of pain (as cited in Paternoster, 2010). Bentham’s pleasure principle is defined by the benefits; while the pain principle is the costs (as cited in Paternoster, 2010). Bentham specified four elements of pleasure and pain; physical, political, moral or popular, and religious (as

One of the points that Kant tries to make is to never treat “humanity”, whether it be yourself or another person, as a means the same time as an end (Wells-Quash, 2010). On the topic of capital punishment, it can be viewed that just simply killing someone out of revenge for a heinous act is against the notion of Kant’s system.

Another problem with Bentham’s philosophy is that he would not distinguish between pleasure and pain, seemingly defining them as the same thing. In my opinion pleasure is generally a momentary thing whilst happiness is a more lasting and consistent thing. One might gain pleasure from sitting watching TV all day long. However in doing he is missing work and so will end up with no job and no money to support himself (and pay his TV licence!) and will presumably be left unhappy. So, as demonstrated by this example, pleasure is not necessarily happiness and Bentham, was mistaken to define them together

Kant chooses to stick with the principle of retaliation even when dealing with capital punishment. He believes that “every murderer —anyone who commits murder, orders it, or is an accomplice in it— must suffer death.” (Kant 107) In order for justice to be made, the murderer must suffer the same consequences as his crime. If the murderer is not punished with death, it would not be a fair punishment because people would rather choose to live a tough life than die a quick death; and if this were the case, living would imply a less than equal punishment for the crime. Kant does say, however, that a criminal should only be punished for retribution. Any other reasons for his punishment, such as deterrence, are unacceptable because a human being should “never be treated merely as a means to the purposes of another.” (Kant 105) Doing so would violate the criminal’s rights as a human being.

Bentham’s framework is a theory of Utilitarianism which can be summed simply in the more commonly used phrasing: “the ends justifies the means”. Or basically, that if the outcome of an action is perceived to be more beneficial than failing to perform the action, then the action used to achieve this outcome is

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

Jeremy Bentham is a teleological/consequential philosopher or consequentialist, one who focuses on the consequences and ends instead of intention and actions. Bentham’s focus carries more weight than that of Immanuel Kant or John Stuart Mill and their views. Jeremy Bentham’s philosophy focuses on measuring pain and pleasure for the greatest number of morally significant beings through their actions. Bentham presents guidelines that measure the intensity, duration, (un) certainty, propinquity, fecundity, and extent of the pain and pleasure that a certain action beholds and uses these measurements to determine if the action promotes the greatest good (being pleasure in Bentham’s case) for the greatest number of morally significant beings (Hoff 2017).

How I view freedom is when we are truly given maximum capacity to do as we wish. And I believe that is proven through emotions or desires. He puts too many limitations on free will, as it should be more encompassing to include decisions made without morality. How would Kant explain murder? By placing a limitation on free will, and that limitation being morality, what about those who freely act in immorally ways.

On the other hand, those who are on the side of death penalty assert that death penalty is morally accepted and even required. Kant (n.d) once said that a society is immoral if it does not deprive murderers of their life. Sustain and Vermeule (2006) suggest that death penalty is morally required implying that it is imperative for states to support capital punishment.

Jeremy Bentham was one of the first philosophers to present a fully developed system of utilitarianism. He thought that we, as humans, should evaluate the consequences of our actions, determine whether each action is morally right or wrong, and tally the pleasure and pain that comes as a result of our actions. Is it right for me to donate to charity? Is it right for me to cheat on my government test? These questions we ask ourselves fall under Bentham’s theory known as act-utilitarianism because it focuses on the consequences of every action we perform. Bentham argues that the “greatest happiness of the greatest number of people” (Bentham) is how we should determine right from wrong. He also believed “mankind is under the

For example, Kant states, “If he has committed a murder he must die. Here there is no substitute that will satisfy justice. . . Accordingly, every murderer – anyone who commits murder, orders it, or is an accomplice to it – must suffer death; this is what justice wills in accordance with universal laws that are grounded a priori. . . This fitting of punishment to the crime is shown by the fact that only by this is a sentence of death pronounced on every criminal in proportion to his ‘inner wickedness’ (even when the crime is not murder but another crime against the state that can be paid for only by death)” (Kant, 1996). Here we see that Kant strongly believes in retribution (revenge). He believes that equality is established when legal punishment responds to guilt. He also strongly believes in the death penalty as a form of punishment and justice and believes it is the only proportional punishment to murderers and those who have wickedness inside of them. Kant (1996 b) believes that “in every punishment, there must first be justice”. Therefore he believes that all punishment (including the death penalty) is a way of giving justice, and a failure to punish, would be societies failure of giving justice. Not everyone has the right to give justice. Punishment must be given by someone in authority (either a single person or a group) and is either carried out under a system of law or in other social settings (such as within a family). Kant

Bentham’s concern was upon utilitarianism which assumes the greatest happiness for the greatest numbers. He believes that individuals weigh the probabilities of present and future pleasures against those of present and future pain (Postema, 1998).

Bentham began his perspective to the principles of Morals and Legislation with the classic sentence: