Essay about PHILOSOPHY

Philosophy is defined by Webster as "Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline" or "Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods." This essay is a general look at those who pursued that intellectual means, those who investigated, even those who reasoned Reason. Because volumes could be written and this is a rather quick, unworthy paper: apologizes.

Kant focuses on the importance of dignity which is the quality that is rendered by an individual’s overt actions. Additionally, internal joy is constituted by how one treats another as a human, not an implement used for one’s self-preserved motive.

Contradictory to Schorth, Robert Blecker goes on to that this punishment is not meant for revenge, using it as revenge would be as if we were using a person to send a message, the death penalty is much larger than that. We should kill for one reason and one reason only: They deserve it, in three words. In one word: justice”(Blecker). The death penalty is not used for revenge nor it does not continue a cycle, it ends the cycle. Criminals, such as the ones in the cases above, take from people, they take their lives, their peace, and their liberties in order to give themselves undeserved

Death penalties are common in many states today. The death penalty is good because a continuous murderer could have taken an innocent person's life, and once the defendant is sentenced to death, the victim’s family would be at ease. Another reason is money, taxes that citizens are paying everyday for a defendant’s trial who repeatedly commits an act of murder.

In order for the good will to remain a universal good, Kant argues that the reason for action must be out of respect for duty to moral

The word “philosophy” is derived from two ancient Greek words, “philos” meaning ‘love of’ and “sophia” meaning ‘wisdom’. Philosophers are lovers of wisdom. They have had the time and resources to sit back and wonder about what things really are like when all the pieces are fitted into one final accounting.

The ones that argue for the death penalty say that it keeps the person from committing any more violent acts as well as teaching a lesson to people who are considering to commit any type of crime(s) in the future.

The question that it seemed to be taken into consideration is whether capital punishment deters crime? There are two types of deterrence theories that are stretched across statistical studies in the law of criminology. The first notable theory is known as “specific deterrence” it is exercised in order to stop a criminal offence from occurring in the future. The theory evaluates that when punished for an unlawful offence it is less likely of the perpetrator to commit the crime again. Another crucial theory is “retribution” in Gregg v. Georgia the Supreme Court claimed that “retribution also known as retributivism is another justified use of death penalty” (183-84). Despite the universal terminology of retribution, most theorist have consolidated a unified notion of retributivism. According to the theory, punishment is on the basis of a perpetrator’s illegal actions and mainly for vengeance. Evident studies found the deterrent effect to be inconclusive; therefore, no firm evidence tied back with the statistical data.

These standpoints go hand and hand when discussing capital punishment. One point of view states retribution is punishment given to someone for committing a wrong or criminal act. According to Pat Buchanan, “The decision to execute a murderer is an act of just retribution, not revenge. If the death penalty were truly vengeful, criminals would be executed by the same means that they used to kill their victims” (Mitchell, 99). Further described by Louis P. Pojman, “Retributivism is the theory that the criminal deserves to be punished and deserves to be punished in proportion to the gravity of his or her crime” (ProCon.org, 2). Both explain that the death penalty is not a vengeful act, but more of an eye for an eye theory. Which states that a person should be penalized to the same degree as their crime. An example from the Law of Hammurabi says, “If a builder builds a house for someone, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built falls in and kills its owner, then that builder shall be put to death...” (Fieser, 2). Retribution ties in closely saying an eye for an eye is in this case a life for a life. Through capital punishment the state partly “pays back” what the criminal has permanently taken away, a human life, which can never be created again (Mitchell, 1). In addition Buchanan states, “Retribution means paying back, making restitution to a victim of what has been unjustly taken away” (Mitchell, 1). In summary, both of the viewpoints of capital punishment is retribution and capital punishment is an eye for an eye are both arguable

Now, supporters of capital punishment say it is vital tool for preserving the law, it deters crime, and it is far less costly than a life prison sentence. “They argue that retribution or "an eye for an eye" honors the victim, helps console grieving families, and ensures that the perpetrators of heinous crimes never have an opportunity to cause future tragedy” (ProCon.org, 2017).

Human beings cannot be used as objects, by any person (not for others, not even for himself). Humans always have to go towards an end, and this is precisely their dignity in virtue of which rises above all else” (Kant 1989). Every person is born with dignity, and this is the most precious aspect of the human being. The defense of dignity is the reason why, the human being is

The death penalty acts as a retribution for the crimes that one may commit. Dr Louis Pojman states that “Retribution is the rationally supported theory that the criminal deserves a punishment fitting the gravity of his crime.” The basis of the death penalty is simple, an eye for an eye. If you murder an innocent citizen, you do not deserve to walk this earth free of harsh punishment. If retribution was not carried out by the state, through the death penalty, the private citizens would most likely take it into their own hands to deal with the crime as they see fit. These actions could result in an anarchistic, insecure state of injustice. We also must note that retribution, unlike vengeance, is not an act of hate; it is an act of equality through the eyes of the law. Capital punishment not only offers retribution, it acts as a large deterrence to harsh crimes.

Retribution is the easiest justification that exists for capital punishment support. If someone you loved was murder brutality, justice would most likely be at the forefront of your mind. Regardless of your original feelings on the death penalty, it’s logical at some point one might consider death to the offender as an option. This initial knee jerk reaction for justice is one of the driving centers for capital punishment support. I would want to

“All things in life are philosophical.” This is a well-known quote by the renowned Greek scientist/philosopher Aristotle. When one is to imagine life without thought, free will or knowledge, they are left to only imagine the oblivion they would be left to reside in. To me, philosophy is more than ethics, esthetics, and epistemology... it is the ability to stand ones ground with certain viewpoints, attitudes and beliefs.

According to Citizen10 again “Capital punishment is necessary to deliver justice- the death penalty provide for retribution against prepetaros.” With the death penalty many families will feel more closure knowing that the person who killed or rapped their family member is paying for what he did. It wouldn’t be fair if the killer is alive having a roof over his head and a bed and even food after the crime that he did, There’s a saying that says “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” which is basically means that if you did something bad such as killing then the only way you can pay is by getting the death