More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay on kant and mill capital punishment
Compare and contrast the death penalty and life imprisonment
Moral justification for capital punishment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essay on kant and mill capital punishment
Immanuel Kant developed a philosophy that argues that morality is about respecting people as ends in themselves, rather than a means to an end. Immanuel Kant reflects his beliefs concerning the existence and execution of the death penalty in a personal quote: "Even in a civilized society, the state has the right to punish the individual." Although every human being deserves dignity and respect, Kant would argue that in order to be a more moral society, our federal and state governments should continue to enact the death penalty in cases of first-degree murder with aggravating factors. Two arguments in favor of the death penalty evolve from Kant's ethical principle of respect for individual autonomy: 1) people who commit murders are acting freely and therefore choose to be subject to the death penalty …show more content…
The first argument manifests itself in the idea that each person should be held accountable for the rational and autonomous decisions that they choose to make. Kant argues that "every person is worthy of respect, not because we own ourselves but because we are rational beings, capable of reason; we are…autonomous beings, capable of acting and choosing freely." (Sandel 107)** People who commit murders do so rationally and therefore autonomously choose to become eligible for the death penalty. The murderers understand the gravity of murder and accept that the punishment for murder should be equally as severe. Kant does not focus on consequences, but believes that with autonomy comes moral responsibility. Furthermore, if a society does not seek a death sentence, they are doing a disservice to the murderer. Denying them the death penalty
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.
In the argument for abolishing or retention of the death penalty, Igor Primoratz took the Pro-retributivism stand for the retention of the death penalty. In Primoratz’s “A Life for A Life,” he argues against the abolitionists utilitarianism stand on the issue of the death penalty. Primoratz argues on the premises that- (a) “Punishment is morally Justified insofar as it is meted out as retribution for offense committed” (Primoratz 356.) (b) Death is the only proportional punishment for murder; (c) Death is the only effective deterrence measure for murder. In response to Primoratz choice to use Kant’s Retributivism argument as the basis for his pro-retention argument for the death penalty, similarly Kant’s Categorical Imperative will be used as a measuring stick to validate or refute Primoratz’s argument for the retention of the death penalty.
The death penalty in American society using the deontological and teleological argument is in the deontological perspective, believes that the death penalty is a morally appropriate punishment and also views capital punishment as being immoral. In deontological argument, it will place moral emphasis on the intentions of his or her actions. The deontological ethics does not focus on the actual consequences. A deontological defense of punishment is likely to be a retributive justification. According to Kant, he believes in the retributive punishment, which is known as the idea of “an eye for an eye”, meaning the law says that we should punish someone not because what they did was wrong, but to just punish them for the sake of punishing.
Philosophy is one’s oxygen. Its ubiquitous presence is continuously breathed in and vital to survival, yet its existence often goes unnoticed or is completely forgotten. Prussian philosopher Immanuel Kant was one of the many trees depositing this indispensable system of beliefs into the air. Philosophy is present in all aspects of society, no matter how prominent it may be. As Kant was a product of the Scientific Revolution in Europe, the use of reason was an underlying component in the entirety of his ideas. One of his main principles was that most human knowledge is derived from experience, but one also may rely on instinct to know about something before experiencing it. He also stated that an action is considered moral based on the motive behind it, not the action itself. Kant strongly believed that reason should dictate goodness and badness (McKay, 537). His philosophies are just as present in works of fiction as they are in reality. This is exemplified by Lord of the Flies, a fiction novel written by William Golding. The novel strongly focuses on the origins of evil, as well as ethics, specifically man’s treatment of animals and those around him. Kant’s philosophy is embedded in the thoughts and actions of Piggy, Ralph, Jack, and Simon throughout the novel. Kant’s beliefs also slither into “Snake,” a poem by D.H. Lawrence, focusing on the tainting of the pure human mind by societal pressures and injustices. Overall, both the poet in “Snake” and Piggy, Ralph, Jack, and Simon in Lord of the Flies showcase Immanuel Kant’s theories on ethics, reasoning, and nature.
The death penalty, as administered by states based on their individual laws, is considered capital punishment, the purpose of which is to penalize criminals convicted of murder or other heinous crimes (Fabian). The death penalty issue has been the focus of much controversy in recent years, even though capital punishment has been a part of our country's history since the beginning. Crimes in colonial times, such as murder and theft of livestock were dealt with swiftly and decisively ("The Death Penalty..."). Criminals were hanged shortly after their trial, in public executions. This practice was then considered just punishment for those crimes. Recently though, the focus of the death penalty debate has been on moral and legal issues. The murderers of today's society can be assured of a much longer life even after conviction, with the constraints of the appeals process slowing the implementation of their death sentence. In most cases, the appeal process lasts several years, during which time criminals enjoy comfortable lives. They have television, gym facilities, and the leisure time to attend free college-level classes that most American citizens must struggle to afford. Foremost, these murderers have the luxury of time, something their victims ran out of the moment their paths crossed. It is time this country realized the only true justice for these criminals is in the form of the death penalty. The death penalty should be administered for particularly heinous crimes.
In the article “The Penalty of Death”, written by H. L. Mencken, utilitarian principles are used to cover up for a system that wants results. All of the reasons that Mencken gives as justifications do not give concrete evidence of why the death penalty should continue as a means of punishment. The article states, “Any lesser penalty leaves them feeling that the criminal has got the better of society...” This statement alone demonstrates how he believes the death penalty brings justice and satisfaction to the people. Mencken creates the points he makes in his article in order to give society a way to make the death penalty seem less intrusive on moral principles and more of a necessary act.
I am going to apply the theory of Kant’s Deontology to the case regarding assisted suicide for psychological suffering.
Seventeenth century philosopher, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) best summarized the justification for capital punishment with his theory of retributivism. In a famous passage, Kant says: “Even if a civil society resolved to dissolve itself with the consent of all its members--as might be supposed in the case of a people inhabiting an island resolving to separate and scatte
Before addressing the dilemma of capital punishment and its relation to Kant's "Respect for Persons" ethics, it is important to be informed of the background of this dilemma. A topic of growing and heated debate in today's society, capital punishment involves many more aspects than the average citizen may think. This controversial practice, which is also commonly referred to as the death penalty, is defined as the legally authorized killing of someone as punishment for a crime. Today, the federal government and thirty-two of the fifty states permit execution for first-degree murder. (Death Penalty Information Center) A majority of executions are carried out through lethal injection, but electrocution, hanging, the gas chamber, and firing squads are still legal in a few states. In states that allow for more than one option, death row inmates are allowed to choose their execution given qualifying circumstances. Under specific circumstances and in certain jurisdictions, treason, kidnapping, aggravated rape, felony murder, and murder while unde...
In this paper I will argue for the moral permissibility of the death penalty and I am fairly confident that when the case for capital punishment is made properly, its appeal to logic and morality is compelling. The practice of the death penalty is no longer as wide-spread as it used to be throughout the world; in fact, though the death penalty was nearly universal in past societies, only 71 countries world-wide still officially permit the death penalty (www.infoplease.com); the U.S. being among them. Since colonial times, executions have taken place in America, making them a part of its history and tradition. Given the pervasiveness of the death penalty in the past, why do so few countries use the death penalty, and why are there American states that no longer sanction its use? Is there a moral wrong involved in the taking of a criminal’s life? Of course the usual arguments will be brought up, but beyond the primary discourse most people do not go deeper than their “gut feeling” or personal convictions. When you hear about how a family was ruthlessly slaughtered by a psychopathic serial killer most minds instantly feel that this man should be punished, but to what extent? Would it be just to put this person to death?
Mappes, Thomas A., Jane S. Zembaty, and David DeGrazia. "The Death Penalty." Social Ethics: Morality and Social Policy. 8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2012. 105-53. Print.
Ethics and morality are the founding reasons for both supporting and opposing the death penalty, leading to the highly contentious nature of the debate. When heinous crimes are com...
In chapter 11 The Kantian Perspective: Fairness and Justice Immanuel Kant suggests that the clear cut basic works upon the same technique as the ethical law and it is likewise disregarded by the individuals who accept who apply "double standards ". The downright basic may further be recognized as a prerequisite to not regard other objective creatures as means, for Kant communicates that every single reasonable being contain the capacity of pressing together objectives, yet never see themselves as just an intends to another reason for their moves are eventually made all alone benefit and are finishes in themselves. Immanuel Kant thought along these lines and was prone to the most splendid savant ever to have done as such. He remains maybe the
Americans have argued over the death penalty since the early days of our country. In the United States only 38 states have capital punishment statutes. As of year ended in 1999, in Texas, the state had executed 496 prisoners since 1930. The laws in the United States have change drastically in regards to capital punishment. An example of this would be the years from 1968 to 1977 due to the nearly 10 year moratorium. During those years, the Supreme Court ruled that capital punishment violated the Eight Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. However, this ended in 1976, when the Supreme Court reversed the ruling. They stated that the punishment of sentencing one to death does not perpetually infringe the Constitution. Richard Nixon said, “Contrary to the views of some social theorists, I am convinced that the death penalty can be an effective deterrent against specific crimes.”1 Whether the case be morally, monetarily, or just pure disagreement, citizens have argued the benefits of capital punishment. While we may all want murders off the street, the problem we come to face is that is capital punishment being used for vengeance or as a deterrent.
Should euthanasia, or physician assisted suicide, be legal? The End of Life Options Act in Utah argues for the conditions under which patients should be able to legally request and be given a life-ending prescription. On one hand, it seems right for physicians to deny their patients euthanasia because all lives have value, but on the other hand it also seems right for patients to have the choice of requesting euthanasia if they are capable of making a fully informed decision. Immanuel Kant, a liberal philosopher, asserts that human life has absolute value and thus it should never be ended under any circumstance. However, John Locke, a liberal and empirical philosopher, claims that people can use their reason to make decisions, and these decisions