Kant and the Morality of Anger
Introduction
This essay does not comprise a defence of retributive punishment, neither does it imply a rejection of deterrent punishment. The writer suggests that one possible reason for the tendency to advocate punishment of offenders with ever increasing severity can be discovered in the concept of the 'morality of anger'. It is this explanation of the phenomenon that forms the principal burden of the arguments used in this essay.
The salient characteristics of the two theories of punishment, which find expression in English law, will be found below [1]. In the absence of any definitive public policy an unresolved tension exists, which derives from attempts made to reconcile the two theories, with some degree of balance, in sentencing practice. Actual sentences in the English courts are often a compromise between the demands of retribution and deterrence. Any uncertainty that may exist about which theory is being used, in particular circumstances, leads to actions which cannot be completely justified by either theory [2].
Crime and Punishment in Kant's Civil Society
According to Kant's moral theory an exacting principle of respect for humanity, in the form of the person, can be reconciled with the absolute necessity of punishment, because punishment, within a properly constituted civil society, is a legitimate and necessary response to crime — punishment must comply with the moral law as a 'categorical imperative [3]. Kant's theory of retributive punishment is of particular importance, because it is one of the most coherent and consistent of the retributive theories, and has not lost its relevance in contemporary discussions [4].
Kant's civil society rest securely on th...
... middle of paper ...
...Foundation Course The Open University 1986, Units 13-15 pp. 68-76
Feinberg, Joel Harmless Wrong Doing, The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law Oxford 1988, pp. 159-165
Guyer, Paul (Ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Kant Cambridge 1992, Essay 10, 'Autonomy, obligation and virtue: An overview of Kant's moral philosophy', pp.309-341, also Essay 11, 'Politics, freedom and order: Kant's political philosophy,, pp.342-366
Hoffe, Otfried Immanuel Kant New York 1994
Honderich, T Punishment, The Supposed Justifications Oxford 1989, pp. 208-237
Paton, H J The Categorical Imperative London 1947
Rawls, John A Theory of Justice Oxford 1972 pp. 251-257
Singer, Peter A Companion to Ethics Oxford 1993 Essay 32, 'Crime and Punishment', C L Ten pp. 366-372
Sorell, Tom Moral Theory and Capital Punishment Oxford 1987
Walker, Nigel Why Punish? Oxford 1991
Stetser, Merle (2001). The Use of Force in Police Control of Violence: Incidents Resulting in Assaults on Officers. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing L.L.C.
The Boeing Company originally started out as the Pacific Aero Products Co., which was founded on July 15, 1916. The name was changed about a year later to The Boeing Airplane Company. The Boeing Company stayed relatively small until World War I when they were selected by Navy officials to produce an order for 50 model C's planes for the war efforts. The company continued to prosper and by the late 1950s, Boeing President William Allen knew that the company had the scientists, the experience and the facilities to lead the company into uncharted territories. He was right, Boeing has emerged as the leading aerospace company in the world today.
This paper considers the desert arguments raised to support retributivism, or retribution. Retributivism is "the application of the Principle of Desert to the special case of criminal punishment." Russ Shafer-Landau and James Rachels offer very different perspectives on moral desert which ground their differing views on the appropriate response to wrongdoing. In "The Failure of Retributivism," Shafer-Landau contends that retributivism fails to function as a comprehensive theoretical foundation for the legal use of punishment. In contrast, in his article "Punishment and Desert," Rachels uses the four principles of guilt, equal treatment, proportionality and excuses to illustrate the superiority of retribution as the basis for the justice system over two alternatives: deterrence and rehabilitation. Their philosophical treatment of the term leads to divergence on the justification of legal punishment. Ultimately, Rachels offers a more compelling view of desert than Shafer-Landau and, subsequently, better justifies his endorsement of a retributive justice system.
The Boeing Corporation is one of the largest manufacturers in the world. Rivaled only by European giant Airbus in the aerospace industry, Boeing is a leader in research, design and manufacture of commercial jet airliners, for commercial, industrial and military customers. Despite enjoying immense success in its market and dominating an industry that solely recognizes engineering excellence, it is crucial for Boeing to ensure continued growth through consistent strategy formulation and execution to avoid falling behind in market share to close and coming rivals.
Herbert Morris and Jean Hampton both view punishment as important to a healthy society. However, their views on what kind of role does punishment plays in a healthy society are vastly different. Morris believes that when one commits a crime they “owe a debt to the society and the person they wronged” and, therefore the punishment of that person is retributive, and a right for those who committed this wrong (270). Hampton, on the other hand, believes that punishment is a good for those who have strayed in the path of being morally right. Out of the two views presented, I believe that Hampton view is more plausible, and rightly places punishment as a constructive good that is better suited for society than Morris’s view.
Boeing Corporation is at an all time high for sales. "For the first time, its commercial-airplane unit earned more than its defense side."(Masters, 2007) "Boeing's backlog of orders increased 47% to a record 208 Billion, more than seven times the units 2006 revenues."(Masters, 2007) This has presented a separate problem for the organization.
Have you ever wonder if there is any good justification for the policy of punishing people for breaking laws? Boonin’s definition of punishment consists of Authorized, Reprobative, Retributive, Intentional Harm. The problem of punishment incorporates three different answers. Consequentialism, which makes punishment beneficial (will do good for the people later in the future). Retributivism punishment is a fitting response to crime. As well as, the option of ‘other’ punishment can be a source of education, or expressive matter. Moreover a fourth answer can be an alternative called restitution, punishment is not necessary for social order. In The Problem of Punishment, by David Boonin deeply studies a wide range of theories that explain why the institutions is morally permitted to punish criminals. Boonin argues that no state , no-one succeeds with punishment. To make his argument stronger, he endorses abolitionism, the view
The problem of the correct legal response to crime has produced passionate discussions within the study of criminology. The classical theories of justice present consistent legal action of all offenders who have committed identical crime while emphasising the notion of punishment as deterrence. Opposing this is the theory of the positivist school, which denies punishment as a preventative measure and instead promotes the rehabilitation of offenders through the recognition that each offender is an individual in their own right. In this essay, we will first understand the principles of proportionality and consistency and the importance of these principles in sentencing and then explore the effectiveness of both fixed punishment and open ended
Question 1: A popular objection against deterrence-based legal punishment is that it would justify punishing the innocent, an objection that critics of the theory consider to be decisive. The first element of this objection is clarifying the definition of punishment so that it can successfully be incurred on innocents. From there, the weight of the argument falls on how our moral judgments against punishing the innocent are a priori and universal rather than an empirical observation on this world. This aims to refute an anticipated reply to the fundamental concept of this argument, this being that punishing the innocent is immoral regardless of its utilitarian effect, up to a certain extent at least. However, this does not succeed at being a decisive rejection of the theory.
Technology Innovation: - Boeing should carefully analyze the market to evaluate the trends in the airline industry and aggressively invest in a new product line (top dog strategy) that could counter Airbus’s A380.
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.
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
The controversial topic of punishment provokes many strong reactions and opinions amongst people. When asked the questions, “what justifies punishment?” or “can punishment be justified at all?” the traditional debate between deterrence theory, retributive theory, and abolitionist theory are examined and discussed by individuals without even knowing that they are doing so. Deterrence theorists discuss punishment in terms of the balance of good versus evil produced from actions and focus their attention on the consequences of carrying out punishment. Retributivists discuss punishment in terms of wrongdoing, justifying the punishment on the grounds that it gives the offenders what they deserve. Abolitionists are strongly opposed to punishment. In this essay, I will provide my argument and justification for the deterrence theory of punishment, which is punishment through incarceration. I believe that
Johan Finnish rightly said that the delinquent behavior of a person needs to be thought not with melody but with iron rod . All the people should act in social interest and in accordance with social acceptance. All wrongful act of any individual need to be punished. There are different theories of punishment but what distinguishes all these theories is their focus and goal. On the basis of this we can divide theories of punishment into three type:
What are the claims as to why punishment should be morally used? The author looks at three main justifications of punishment. Those who believe that the offender deserves to be chastised for his or her crime justify punishment by appealing to desert thereby retributive in nature thus backward-looking. The justification of punishment