Punishment is the suffering, pain, or loss that serves at retribution. Others also say it is “the authoritative imposition of something unpleasant on a person in response to a behavior deemed to be wrong by an individual or group” (Hugo & McAnany, 2010). Some question when and why we should punish. Though easy to state, this question is difficult to answer and has lead to a variety of models of punishment. In Kant’s article Metaphysics of Morals, he discusses the importance of punishment and its correspondence to crime, the right to punish, and when to grant clemency. In this paper, I will refer to the articles Critique of Political Reason and Metaphysics of Morals, and I will discuss Kant’s perspective on crime, punishment, and justice. After, I will critique Kant’s perspective and explain the benefits and flaws about it. Last, I will end off by stating my own personal opinion on Kant’s perspective and why I disagree with it. Overall, in this paper, I will explain my disagreement with Kant’s doctrine on punishment due to the fact that I believe some forms of Kant’s punishment, are a violation of humanity.
In the articles Critique of Political Reason and Metaphysics of Morals, Kant explains and believes that punishment must always correspond and is proportional to the crime. Kant defines crime as “a transgression of public law that makes someone who commits it unfit to be a citizen” (Kant 1996). In society, if a crime is committed, one is usually punished. Kant believes that the guilty deserve punishment and that punishment should be proportional to the guilt. He believes that people only get punished because they are guilty of committing a crime, and for no other reason. Therefore, people are punished more harshly for more seri...
... middle of paper ...
... no one can dispose of his own life” (Kant, 1996). Barely anyone would ever consent to the death of his or her own life; therefore no one should have the right to take it. Whether or not someone is a criminal, the individual is still a human being, which is what Kant fails to recognize.
In conclusion, from examining the two articles we can see Kant’s doctrine on crime, punishment, and justice. After a critique of Kant’s perspective, it is shown how Kant’s forms of punishment are a violation of humanity. I believe that capital punishment is a way for society to dispose their unwanted criminals I believe that it is uncivil and inhumane to kill someone regardless of the reason and to physically make them suffer. As humans we should all be given a second chance to correct our mistakes rather than stigmatizing individuals and taking ones fate into our own hands.
When viewing capital punishment in light of retributive justice, Kant's "Respect for Persons" ethics can be applied in order to uphold the retentionist argument. Capital punishment continues to be a growing controversial topic in society and is an important ethical dilemma to discuss. It can most prominently be supported by Kant's "Respect for Persons" ethics which when applied to the practice of capital punishment implies that it is morally acceptable in the sense that it gives people what they deserve. Additionally, despite consistent arguments by those who oppose capital punishment, the death penalty appears to be the most practical practice of punishment granted certain conditions.
The original argument emphasizes the husband’s perception of himself as a means, which opposes Kant’s view of morality as the treatment of all rational beings as ends. In order for the husband to behave morally, he must treat both himself and his wife as ends. By considering himself as a means for his wife, he breeds contradiction between treating his wife as an end from a moral sense of duty and making an exception for himself. The former suggests that he recognizes the importance of universal morality and viewing all people as ends, but the latter suggests that he applies a different standard to
Throughout Kant’s, Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, some questionable ideas are portrayed. These ideas conflict with the present views of most people living today.
In this essay I shall explore the question of moral responsibility and free will, by looking at, and comparing, ideas that stem from a Kantian philosophical position, and those that stem from a naturalist philosophical position. I will also consider the implications that follow from each position, when considering the issue of punishment. Furthermore, I will show that although Kantian and naturalist philosophers typically differ in some aspects, such as their concept of the source of free will, they find themselves in much the same position when it comes to determining when moral responsibility is applicable. However, when we turn to applying moral philosophy to the important practical issue of punishment, the Kantian position becomes incoherent as soon as we consider the possibility that free will does not exist. Conversely, a naturalist position, particularly one of the consequentialist tradition, remains capable of answering such an important normative question, regardless of whether its notion of free will turns out to be correct or incorrect. Ultimately then, I will suggest that it is the naturalist philosopher who is in the better position to tackle the normative question of punishment, that arises in applied moral philosophy.
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
In his second imperative he stated that we have to “always treat rational beings as an end and never as a means only” (Vaughn, p.114). Of course they’re true, in this situation we would be using the child as means to an end. Since we’re torturing him to locate the terrorist. However I can also argue that this is where Kant’s theory is too absolute. In this situation would you save millions of lives by torturing one child or be the reason why millions and many more had to die because you couldn’t torture one
With the opinion of multiple authors present, individuals are left to make their own decision concerning the rights of capital punishment. To begin with, Lydia Child is the author of Against Capital Punishment; Child has a negative view towards those associated in supporting capital punishment. With this in mind, Child believes human life is a sacred gift and should not be discriminated against. In addition, Walter Rodgers expresses his feeling throughout the article America’s New Drug of Choice: Revenge. Rodgers reminds citizens life is not all about vengeance. Also, Rodgers reminds people about the history of executing innocent people in our nation. The two previous authors show a few perspectives regarding capital punishment.
In Foundation of the Metaphysics of Morals Immanuel Kant presents three propositions of morality. In this paper I am going to explain the first proposition of morality that Kant states. Then I will assert a possible objection to Kant’s proposition by utilizing an example he uses known as the sympathetic person. Lastly, I will show a defense Kant could use against the possible objection to his proposition.
What are, and what are the differences between, judgments of perception and judgments of experience for Kant?
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.
Kant holds a strong view that capital punishment is the only form of punishment that is suitable for murder. Kant states, “Criminals should be punished because they deserve to be punished, because they must receive their just deserts. And murderers deserve death, and a just society will punish
ABSTRACT: Both utilitarians and the deontologists are of the opinion that punishment is justifiable, but according to the utilitarian moral thinkers, punishment can be justified solely by its consequences, while the deontologists believe that punishment is justifiable purely on retributive ground. D. D. Raphael is found to reconcile both views. According to him, a punishment is justified when it is both useful and deserved. Maclagan, on the other hand, denies it to be justifiable in the sense that it is not right to punish an offender. I claim that punishment is not justifiable but not in the sense in which it is claimed by Maclagan. The aim of this paper is to prove the absurdity of the enquiry as to whether punishment can be justified. Difference results from differing interpretations of the term 'justification.' In its traditional meaning, justification can hardly be distinguished from evaluation. In this sense, to justify an act is to say that it is good or right. I differ from the traditional use and insist that no act or conduct can be justified. Infliction of punishment is a human conduct and as such it is absurd to ask for its justification. I hold the view that to justify is to give reason, and it is only a statement or an assertion behind which we can put forth reason. Infliction of pain is an act behind which the agent may have purpose or intention but not reason. So, it is not punishment, but rather statements concerning punishment that we can justify.
When determining what constitutes ethical behavior, society must exclude outside factors such as emotion and consequences. In regard to the capital punishment, neither is acceptable. “Moral worth of an action depends exclusively on whether it is done from duty,” 18th century Philosopher Immanuel Kant asserts, “regardless of our particular desires and inclinations” (Kant 78). While in different situations our motives may be different, our actions must be universal and intrinsically moral. If we are deciding whether or not to justify killing another human being, we can at least make that decision by using prudent logic instead of arbitrary reasoning.
Kant proclaimed that one must “act in such a way that you treat that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means." Thus, the act of torture treats another as a means to achieve an end and is morally reprehensible. Furthermore, Kant emphasizes the unique value of human life, agreeing with the Christian ethical principle of “The Golden Rule”, "Do to others what you want them to do to you.”
While Kant strongly endorsed the development of moral character, he was opposed to the prize and punishment system. He felt that “moral culture must be based upon maxims, not upon discipline” (2). If one made the right decision strictly based upon a reward or consequence, than he did not possess proper moral worth. Kant acknowledges that this system was one of the greatest challenges in education.