Kant Essay example

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.

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.

Often, when a criminal is sentenced to the death penalty for committing a murder, people begin to question the legality and morality of it, and try to defend or attack it. One of the first few things that come to mind when people try to defend the death penalty is the statement, “an eye for an eye,” or the principle of lex talionis, meaning we treat people the way they have treated others (Textbook, 538). Although this argument is well-backed up, it does not always prove to be the best principle when determining the type of punishment, one deserves. Stephen Nathanson, an abolitionist to the death penalty, discusses this idea in his article “An Eye for and Eye,” specifically within his argument stating that equality retributivism does not justify the death penalty and that it should be rejected (Textbook, 539). Equality retributivism, which is the idea that we penalize criminals with punishments that are equal to their crimes, serves as a great principle for some crimes but not all. I find this statement, along with Nathanson’s argument, to be true because not all crimes can have a punishment equal to it. Throughout this paper, I will discuss Nathanson’s argument, some objections raised, and lastly, whether the objection succeeds or not.

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

When we are presented with a situation and we want to decide whether an act we are about to perform is right or wrong Kant would suggest to look at the maxims of the act itself and not just the amount of misery or happiness the act is most likely to produce. “We just have to check that the act we have in mind will not use anyone as mere means, and, if possible that it will treat other persons as ends in themselves” (O’Neil, 1985). Kant would want to help these men and women seek help for their drug addiction. Kant would treat

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.

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.

Capital punishment has raised debate in America since 1608. Both the “pro-“ and “anti-“ sides of the issue have strong arguments. Some believe killing is simply wrong, and violates universal human rights, others seek the only justice they deem appropriate, equal justice. I will examine the philosophies of Immanuel Kant, and John Stuart Mill, with regards to their stance on the death penalty.

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

Kantian moral theories make a very strong argument for why torture is wrong just in its definition. If we are using someone in a way which they have not directly consented to this means we are using them as a mere means which is exactly what Kant proposes we avoid (O’Neil, 1986, p.45). Torcher, by definition, cannot be consented to. If it could be, it wouldn’t be called torture. That person would have asked for it and they would have a reason to gain something out of the situation. “The Formula of the End in Itself applies to the intentions on which one acts-not to some prettified version that one may avow”

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

Ronald D. Cretlinsten contends that torturers acquire the ability to cope with the moral dilemmas of inflicting pain upon and murdering their fellow humans primarily through the processes of “routinization” and “dehumanization”, and also through the notion of “authorization” (191). With such as the case, an individual adept in the art of torture would necessarily have learned to be cruel, however, that argument neglects the very reality that many engaged in such activities are intrinsically perverse, and in fact willingly and happily do harm to others.

The opposition of capital punishment stems from several reasonable arguments concerning our rights as humans as well as our fallacies. Opponents of execution often argue that killing someone on the basis of legal justice is simply another immoral taking of a life, which in turn raises the question: how valuable is human life? This question is something that is difficult to answer, but I believe that the value of human life is inherit. I also believe that said value can decrease in accordance with one’s actions. Should the life of a child-rapist be equal to that of a community leader? Do they both deserve equally to live? If one discusses this topic, they

Patrick murders Corwin Earlie who ill-treated the child, and Patrick knows that by doing so, he breaks the law. This begs the question, whether his act remains in tandem with Kant’s thought that a moral act remains without condition, right for any person in similar circumstances. In this situation, the answer would be yes, since the man killed the child, and allowing him to live is an injustice to the child and the family. However, there is a question of the moral value, whether killing the man is right. In fact, it leads to an atrocious experience of two individuals killed in the same case, which is not ethically right. For Patrick, he thinks that the same way that the man killed the child, he also deserve

Kant said that you should never treat people as a means of some ends. People should always be treated as ends in themselves; it promotes equality among human beings.