Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Morality immanuel kant morality
Morality immanuel kant morality
Morality immanuel kant morality
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Morality immanuel kant morality
I choose the question; “Is putting a serial killer to death ethically sound when guilt has been established with absolute certainty?”. I choose this question because of how much I feel towards anyone being put on a death sentence. My junior year of high school I read a book titled; In Cold Blood, written by Truman Capote. In this novel two men are sentenced to death for the murder of a Kansas family. It tells of their thoughts and emotions while on death row. While understanding that the two men in the novel, based off of a real event, and the absolute certainty of the serial killer in the stated question are condemned to death, I also understand that there have been other people throughout history condemned to death who were either accused
According to chapter nine, Categorical Imperative says that in order for something to be considered morally acceptable you have to question whether or not it is right for everyone in the world to do. According to chapter ten, the Categorical Imperative has to do with “the inherent worth and dignity of human beings and that the criminal 's evil deed draws the punishment upon himself because in doing so he has decided that this is the way people are to be treated (5)”. Kantianism states that; “after an act is deemed moral or immoral, outcome doesn’t matter anymore, only the rules or the acts themselves” (2). The Kantian response to question of whether the imposed death sentenced it ethical or not would be; because the act of murder in deemed immoral in most societies, then the outcome of whether or not to sentence him to death, does not matter. Only the rule of, you should not commit murder, and the act of murder that the killer committed, an immoral act, is what matters. The ‘maxim’, “A short, pithy statement expressing a general truth or rule of conduct” (3), would be; is it okay to put someone to death for the murder or a more than one individual? Although this question can be asked universally, the answer itself is not universalized. Every culture has different views on what it views as acceptable or not in their society, and so not everyone would say
In Cold Blood addresses a variety of issues including questions of whether a person's upbringing plays a role in criminal activity, and whether the death penalty is right or wrong. It also deals with issues such as prejudice and religion. I feel as if the disposition of the case was fair, but I also feel bad for them.
Kant believes in the theory of the categorical imperative, which states that people should “act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.” (Kant 31) In other words, people should act only in such a way that their actions can become a law that can be applied universally (to everyone). In The Metaphysics of Morals, Kant’s definition of a crime is any act that violates the public law (Kant 105) and the right to punish is “the right a ruler has against a subject to inflict pain upon him because of his having committed a crime.” (Kant 104) According to Kant, laws exist to protect society. Without them, society cannot exist and, thus, they must be enforced in a way such that people who follow the laws are considered members of society, and people that violate the laws lose their right to be members of society and, therefore, must be punished. The level of punishment that should be advocated towards the criminal should be equivalent to the severity of the crime. Simply put, “an eye for an...
The les talionis approach to capital punishment should not be limited only murder just because “the uniqueness of the crime has to do with the uniqueness of the value which has been deliberately destroyed” (Primoratz 357.) To approach one crime and punishment with a retributive mindset clearly fails Kant’s decree that “an action is permissible if the maxim can be universalized” (Vaughn 122.) If the punishment for murder is death, then all other punishment for any other crime should resemble the
Kant argued that the Categorical Imperative (CI) was the test for morally permissible actions. The CI states: I must act in such a way that I can will that my maxim should become a universal law. Maxims which fail to pass the CI do so because they lead to a contradiction or impossibility. Kant believes this imperative stems from the rationality of the will itself, and thus it is necessary regardless of the particular ends of an individual; the CI is an innate constituent of being a rational individual. As a result, failure ...
Since 1973 there have been a total number of one-hundred and fifty-one death row executions. (10 Reasons…, 1). Out of all of these executions only eighteen of them have ever had any further evidence to show that the guilty party was innocent. Many people argue that this is enough to make it to where the death penalty should not be used. However, that leaves one-hundred and thirty-three death row executions that have not been proven to have been the wrong person. If each individual that is sentenced to be executed has killed only one person than that is one-hundred and thirty-three people that have been killed. The fact remains that if there were no death penalty executions then there would be one-hundred and fifty-one people that have not been justified by their death. Although having eighteen innocent people put to death because they were wrongfully accused is a terrible thing, it does not even begin to oppose the one-hundred and fifty-one people that were killed because of the hate and fear that causes a person to bring this harm upon other people. Also many of these people have affected more than just one person. They may have killed or harmed multiple people. The people who oppose this are simply stating that the murderers’ lives are worth more than the people that they killed.
Is the death penalty fair? Is it humane? Does it deter crime? The answers to these questions vary depending on who answers them. The issue of capital punishment raises many debates. These same questions troubled Americans just as much in the day of the Salem witch trials as now in the say of Timothy McVeigh. During the time of the Salem witchcraft trials they had the same problem as present society faces. Twenty innocent people had been sentenced to death. It was too late to reverse the decision and the jurors admitted to their mistake. The execution of innocent people is still a major concern for American citizens today.
...t it should become a universal law." In order to understand what this means, we have to discern what Kant means by maxims. Kant believed that people did certain things for particular motives, and when they did these things they were adhering to a maxim. With that in mind, we can understand the Categorical Imperative to mean that we should only act a definite way in a situation if that action would be suitable every time that situation came about. Kant later restated his Categorical Imperative to say that we should act so as to treat humanity, whether in our own person or in that of another, constantly as an end, and never as a means to an end. In other words, we should not merely exploit people in order to achieve our own goals. We should not treat them merely as objects, or tools, to be used in our own doings. To this end, Schindler's plea for mercy seems sensible.
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?
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...
One of the most repetitive and controversial topics discussed in the criminal justice system, is the death penalty. Capital punishment has been a part of our nation’s history since the creation of our constitution. In fact, as of January 1st, 2016, 2,943 inmates were awaiting their fate on death row (Death Penalty Information Center). Throughout my life, I have always been a strong advocate for the death penalty. During the majority of my undergraduate degree, I was a fierce supporter of capital punishment when discussing the topic in classes. However, throughout many criminal justice courses, I found myself in the minority, regarding the abolishment of the death penalty. While debating this topic, I would always find myself sympathetic to the victims and their families, as one should be, wanting those who were responsible for heinous crimes to
Kant’s idea of the hypothetical imperative is, the idea of what someone wants and how they should achieve that want or what they need to do in order to get what they want. The categorical imperative on the other hand is Kant's idea of what must be followed regardless of our own personal interests. When using both of these types of imperatives to analyse the gun control issue, the ideas must be viewed separately. A hypothetical imperative in this situation could be if a person wants to own a gun then they have to make the conscious decision to be responsible with that gun. The individual knows that in order not to be in trouble or have their freedoms taken away they have to exercise responsibility. The categorical imperative that could be applied to the situation is the idea that humans should not kill one another, this idea of not killing someone is an absolute law. The categorical imperatives determine whether something is right or something is wrong for instance killing someone is inherently wrong so Kant believes that no one should do that. This incorporates the idea of Goodwill meaning that down to everyone's fundamental core people are naturally good willed and will do the right thing. If they don't do right the right thing then they are justifying that everyone is allowed to kill and there is nothing wrong with that. Todd Calder Professor of philosophy for the University of Victoria, analyzes Kant’s ideas of imperatives and associates them with degrees of wrongness. Todd described that Kant implied, varying degrees of wrongness when he was thinking of his theories, the degree of wrongness is fitting the crime with punishment. Todd states, “Kant believes that one reason we should mete out punishment according the principle of retribution is that only then will punishment be in proportion to the inner wickedness of the criminal.”(Calder 232) This
There are many people that still believe that Capital Punishment is the best way to go to punish people who murder and commit other drastic crimes. I believe that murders should have the Death Penalty imposed to punish them for taking someone. else's life, although everyone has their own opinion and that is fine. to have a different opinion. Whether Capital Punishment is ethical is also up to your own beliefs, and I hope this essay has given you an insight into Capital Punishment and help you determine your own.
Kant presents his followers with both categorical and hypothetical imperatives (Reitan). The hypothetical imperatives, often dubbed the imperfect duties, basically state, “If you want X, do Y (Reitan).” In other words, hypothetical imperatives are not obligatory of people, but encourage certain actions for certain results. Categorical imperatives say, “Do Y, no matter what you want (Reitan).” These perfect duties, as they are referred to as, are rules that we must follow without any acceptable exceptions (Degrazia, Mappes and Brand-Ballard). These perfect duties include the forbidding of killing innocent people, lying, breaking promises, becoming intoxicated, committing suicide, and masturbating (Horn). Kant ultimately believes that reason dictates what is right and wrong through the categorical imperative of Kantian Deontology, which has two formulations (Reitan). The first states, “Act only on that maxim that you can at the same time (consistently) will to be a universal law (of nature) (Reitan).” This is the philosophical equivalent of “treat others the way you want to be treated.” The second formulation, which could arguably provide a different
First we will start with the historical example of the execution of Jesus. Pontius Pilate was put into a situation where a large crowd had attempted to persuade him that Jesus should be killed instead of a convicted murderer, even though Jesus had done nothing wrong. The majority won and he was killed. The Utilitarians can justify this action because the majority gained happiness from this. On the other hand, those who support Kant’s theory will argue that Jesus had done nothing wrong and his right were clearly violated making the action