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 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...
... middle of paper ...
...places a person’s dignity and honor before life, while Mill places society’s happiness before all else. For Kant, capital punishment serves to preserve the dignity of an individual, while for Mill, capital punishment is used to protect society’s overall happiness. If it were up to you, which side would you take on capital punishment? Kant and Mill raise good questions and points in their perspective arguments, but there are too many contradictions for me to defend on either one of their points of views. I stand against capital punishment.
Works Cited
Kant, Immanuel, and Mary J. Gregor. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge UP, 1998. Print.
Kant, Immanuel, and Mary J. Gregor. The Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1996. Print.
Mill, John Stuart, and George Sher. Utilitarianism. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub., 2001. Print.
Johnson, R. (2013). Kant’s moral philosophy. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2013 Edition). Zalta, E. (Ed.). Retrieved online from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2013/entries/kant-moral/
Rachels, James, and Stuart Rachels. "7,8,9,10." In The elements of moral philosophy. 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2010. 97-145.
Johnson, R 2014, ‘Kant's Moral Philosophy,’ The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (Spring Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), .
Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals. Trans. H. J. Paton. 1964. Reprint. New York: Harper Perennial Modern Thought, 2009. Print.
Overall Kant’s concepts of ‘The Good Will’ and ‘The Categorical Imperative’ can be applied to any situation. His ideas of moral law, good will, duty, maxims, and universal law all intertwine to support his belief. As a whole his concept enables the Kingdom of Ends, which is the desired result of the morality of humanity. Everyone is to treat everyone based upon true good will actions instead of personal gains, this way no one gets used. In all Kant trusts if this is achieved there will be universal peace across humanity.
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...
Defenders of capital punishment can be separated into two categories. Some are retributivists and follow Immanuel Kant’s theory of retribution. Other defenders are consequentialist and follow John Stewart Mill’s consequentialist approach. Both philosophers unambiguously address the dispute of capital punishment as a moral responsibility in their ethical theories...
Kant, Immanuel, translated by Wood, Allen W. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2002. http://www.inp.uw.edu.pl/mdsie/Political_Thought/Kant%20-%20groundwork%20for%20the%20metaphysics%20of%20morals%20with%20essays.pdf
In this paper, I will argue that Kant provides us with a plausible account of morality. To demonstrate that, I will initially offer a main criticism of Kantian moral theory, through explaining Bernard Williams’ charge against it. I will look at his indulgent of the Kantian theory, and then clarify whether I find it objectionable. The second part, I will try to defend Kant’s theory.
O'Neill, O. (1986). A Simplified Account of Kantian Ethics. Matters of life and death (pp. 44-50). n.a.: McGraw-Hill.
In Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant argues that human beings inherently have capability to make purely rational decisions that are not based on inclinations and such rational decisions prevent people from interfering with freedom of another. Kant’s view of inherent ability to reason brings different perspective to ways which human beings can pursue morality thus it requires a close analytical examination.
O’Neill, Onora. “Kantian Ethics.” A Companion to Ethics. Ed. Peter Singer. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 1991. 175-185. Print.
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.
Kant, Immanuel. Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals: With on a Supposed Right to Lie Because of Philanthropic Concerns. Trans. James W. Ellington. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1994. Print.
‘Kantian Ethics’ in [EBQ] James P Sterba (ed) Ethics: the Big Questions, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1998, 185-198. 2) Kant, Immanuel. ‘Morality and Rationality’ in [MPS] 410-429. 3) Rachel, James. The Elements of Moral Philosophy, fourth edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2003.