Kant

Immanuel Kant, a supporter of capital punishment, offered us of the most complicated, if not ambiguous, views on the subject. In fact, he would’ve ironically disagreed with its modern proponents. Those who advocate capital punishment today often do so for utilitarian reasons. For example, the death sentence would protect society by not only preventing a purpertrator from committing the same crime again, it would also deter others by setting an example. Kant would’ve argued the rights of the condemned are being trampled; by using him as an example, we are using him as a means to an end. A rational being, in Kant’s view, is an end in himself, whether criminal or law-abiding citizen. We would thus be violating his humanity.

In Kant’s view of ethics, actions must be undertaken from a sense of duty dictated by reason, and no action performed for appropriateness or solely in obedience to law or custom can be regarded as moral. Moral acts are done for the “right” reasons. Kant goes on to describe two types of commands given by reason: the hypothetical imperative, which dictates a given course of action to reach a specific end; and the categorical imperative, which dictates a course of action that must be followed because of its rightness and necessity. The categorical imperative is the basis of morality and was stated by Kant in these words: “Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will and general natural law.”

Reason, through the categorical imperative, would render such motives immoral; nevertheless, if a man is guilty, it would also dictate that he must not escape punishment. Otherwise, not only is justice being flaunted, but equality, which Kant sees as the basis of law and order, will not have been served. When selecting a punishment, equality becomes our standard. But what in Kant’s view, is equality?

To answer this, we must first understand his concept of jus talionis—the right of retaliation. In essence, there are two parts to this. One, Kant argues that a punishment must fit the crime. He would argue that the degree of suffering inflicted on the victim should be inflicted on the perpetrator. Two, if one commits a crime, he is exposing himself to the danger of his actions. If crime were to become universalized, and therefore acceptable, what is...

... middle of paper ...

... way, to prove that our principles, based on perception, can be rationally applied. Because of this inability to prove our rational perception and thus a moral principle based on that perception, we are unable to demonstrate whether our motives are truly correct. To Kant, these principles can be proven through his transcendental arguments, but there remains the fact that he agreed sensory (and thus transcendental) experience could not be accepted as fact. Because of his lack of definite statement, Kant fails to prove through his arguments that correct thought or action can be universal.

People attempt to describe good based on virtuous thought. Virtuous thought supposes that a virtuous person has a fairly explicit concept of what is moral. Kant’s perception skews the person's thought because each person perceives an event (whatever the event may be) differently. It is this difference in what people perceive that creates opposing viewpoints on morality whether virtuous or not. Any attempt to provide a universal ethic to the community is impeded by the community itself. Not only was it an impossible task in Kant's time, but it is still impossible today.