In the case of the Inquiring Murderer, a woman runs past you and hides in some bushes. When you ask her what is going on, she tells you that someone chasing her is attempting to kill her, and asks you to leave. Soon after, a man armed with a knife asks you if you have seen the woman. Most people would have no issue lying to the man about the woman’s whereabouts. If you tell him where she is, he will almost certainly kill her. This way of thinking produces the greatest good, a consequentialist theory. However, one deontological approach to this situation would hold that lying, regardless of the circumstances, is unethical and an absolute moral law that cannot be violated. This idea of Kantian Ethics, along with Prima Facie Duties and Rights-Based …show more content…
Similarly to Kantian Ethics, what matters morally is whether our actions conform to relevant duties and moral laws, but there are occasions when some duties take priority over other duties. Thus, in the case of the Inquiring Murderer, the duty to protect human life overrides the duty not to lie. There is a correlation between rights and duties, therefore Prima Facie Duties and Rights-Based Ethics often go hand-in-hand. The woman has a right to life, and those around her have a duty to protect that right when it becomes …show more content…
Utilitarianism, on one hand, holds that the morality of actions is dependent upon whether or not they bring about good consequences. Criminal punishment, whether it be through incarceration, deterrence, of rehabilitation, seeks to prevent future crime, thereby benefitting the greater good. Deontology, however, has some objections to these justifications. If the punishment does not prevent future crime, then by deontological standards, we are only inflicting harm towards a person without the benefit of the greater good. Also, punishing people is equivalent to using them as a means and not an end, a violation of human dignity. Therefore, deontologists justify punishment by looking at it as a necessary act. We must punish criminals for their wrongdoings in the name of justice. If good consequences come out of it, that is just an added bonus. Arguably the most important aspect for punishing criminals in the eye of a deontologist is that the punishment must be proportionate to the crime. In turn, we are punishing them because they committed a crime, yet still respecting their human
In Martin Perlmutter's essay "Desert and Capital Punishment," he attempts to illustrate that social utility is a poor method of evaluating the legitimacy of it. Perlmutter claims that a punishment must be "backward looking," meaning that it is based on a past wrongdoing. A utilitarian justification of capital punishment strays from the definition of the term "punishment" because it is "forward looking." An argument for social utility maintains that the death penalty should result in a greater good and the consequences must outweigh the harm, thereby increasing overall happiness in the world. Perlmutter recognizes the three potential benefits of a punishment as the rehabilitation of an offender, protection for other possible victims, and deterring other people from committing the same crime. The death penalty however, obviously does not rehabilitate a victim nor does it do a better job at protecting other potential victims than life imprisonment. Since a punishment must inflict harm on an individual, deterrence is the only argument that utilitarians can use to defend the death penalty. The question then ari...
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 basis of this paper is centered around two somewhat conflicting moral theories that aim to outline two ways of ethical thinking. The theory behind both rule consequentialism and Kantian ethics will be compared and evaluated. These theories can then be applied to a relatively complex moral case known as the “Jim and the Indians” example.
The death penalty in American society using the deontological and teleological argument is in the deontological perspective, believes that the death penalty is a morally appropriate punishment and also views capital punishment as being immoral. In deontological argument, it will place moral emphasis on the intentions of his or her actions. The deontological ethics does not focus on the actual consequences. A deontological defense of punishment is likely to be a retributive justification. According to Kant, he believes in the retributive punishment, which is known as the idea of “an eye for an eye”, meaning the law says that we should punish someone not because what they did was wrong, but to just punish them for the sake of punishing.
What would the criminal justice system be without punishment? Perhaps, the criminal justice system would not serve a function or cease to exist. Punishment is one of the main facets of the criminal justice system. It holds such significance that it even reflects the beliefs and values of a particular society. Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1821-1881) once said “The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons.” (Pollock, 2010: 315). Punishment has been around since the beginning of civilization. With its rich history, the concept of punishment has been analyzed by some of the most renowned theorists, some of which include Jeremy Bentham, Cesare Beccaria, Adolphe Quetelet and André-Michel Guerry (Pollock, 2010: 318). Once found guilty of an offense the type of punishment must be determined. There are many different rationales used to answer why it is necessary to inflict punishment. Rationales for punishment include retribution, prevention, treatment and rehabilitation. To better understand these rationales ethical systems such as utilitarianism, ethical formalism and ethics of care can be used. The general public should be knowledgeable about punishment, even more so should professionals in the criminal justice field because they are directly linked to it in some way.
The judicial system is based off the norms and values that individuals are held to within society. When a person is found guilty of committing a criminal act, there must be a model that serves as the basis of what appropriate punishment should be applied. These models of punishment are often based off of ethical theories and include retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and restoration. The retribution model of punishment views the offender as responsible for their actions and as such, the punishment should fit the crime (Mackie, 1982). Incapacitation is a form of punishment that removes an offender from society. This model protects
Consequentialism is a punishment theory that provides moral justification for punishment by taking into account future consequences and by weighing the intrinsic value of a punishment against other available alternatives. The primary rationale for punishment is to bring the most good over harm, to deter or prevent crimes from occurring in the first place and to prevent future crimes from being committed. Utilitarianism would even consider punishing the innocent or pass a more severe sentence for a lesser crime if it could be determined that benefits to society outweighed the consequences of such punishment (Howard). For example, if it were believed that better crime deterrence or prevention could be achieved, a consequentialist would consider executing a murderer versus handing down a life sentence. Retributivism is a punishment theory that looks back at the specific nature of a crime and determines how much the victim suffered, in order to morally justify the severity of punishment. The moral emphasis is on righting a wrong and seeking justice by ensuring that criminals get what the...
Deontological ethical theory focuses on duty. It is viewed that humans have a duty in doing what is ethically right in any given situation. However, the categorical imperative does not have the same ideas it does not consist of duties to us. As Kant indicates in the idea of the Kingdom of Ends that our duty lies in treating all human beings as ends in and of them instead of as a means to an end it is perceived as being an extension of us. It is based on the desires of a person on how they want to be treated and will succeed as long as the universal good is applied as well. In other words, our actions and behaviors applied in our lives, we can see others imitating. For instance, can we see a world where everyone lied willingly? It does not make sense it would defeat the purpose of being able to identify the truth there would be no meaning. The ethical duty is to be truthful.
According to deontology, people have an obligation that is imposed upon them by the duty to perform certain actions without due consideration on their consequential outcomes, (Braswell, McCarthy & McCarthy, 2011). This explains the instances where it is morally justified to perform a certain action whose pain is greater than the collective pleasures that can be derived from it, (Braswell, McCarthy & McCarthy, 2011). One of the major contributors to the deontological ethical theory is Emmanuel Kant. Deontologists include other ideologies that are inherently lacking among the consequentialist theories, particularly the utilitarianism. These aspects include the duty to act as well as a consideration of the intention to do what is right against what is wrong, (Braswell, McCarthy & McCarthy, 2011). Deontological theorists argue that good intentions or good will is what informs the moral worth of an action and not just a consideration of the
permissible for a person to act in that manner by seeing if it would be
Deontology is a non-consequentialist theory. While consequentialism believes the ends always justify the means, deontologists claim that the rightness of an action should not be solely dependent on maximizing the good, even if that action goes against what is ethically right. For example, four critical conditioned patients in a hospital need a different organ to survive and a healthy man comes into the hospital for a check-up, would you kill the healthy man to save the four? According to consequentialism, the doctor should take the healthy man’s organs to save the others, thus maximizing the good. However, we all know that it is ethically wrong. Deontology objects to this way o...
In chapter 11 The Kantian Perspective: Fairness and Justice Immanuel Kant suggests that the clear cut basic works upon the same technique as the ethical law and it is likewise disregarded by the individuals who accept who apply "double standards ". The downright basic may further be recognized as a prerequisite to not regard other objective creatures as means, for Kant communicates that every single reasonable being contain the capacity of pressing together objectives, yet never see themselves as just an intends to another reason for their moves are eventually made all alone benefit and are finishes in themselves. Immanuel Kant thought along these lines and was prone to the most splendid savant ever to have done as such. He remains maybe the
Capital punishment is a difficult subject for a lot of people because many question whether or not it is ethical to kill a convicted criminal. In order to critically analyze whether or not it is ethical, I will look at the issue using a utilitarianism approach because in order to get a good grasp of this topic we need to look at how the decision will impact us in the future. The utilitarianism approach will help us to examine this issue and see what some of the consequences are with this topic of capital punishment. For years, capital punishment has been used against criminals and continues to be used today, but lately this type of punishment has come into question because of the ethical question.
Regarding the justification of punishment philosophers are not of the same opinion. According to the utilitarian moral thinkers punishment can be justified solely by its consequences. That is to say, according to the utilitarian account of punishment 'A ought to be punished' means that A has done an act harmful to people and it needs to be prevented by punishment or the threat of it. So, it will be useful to punish A. Deontologists like Mabbott, Ewing and Hawkins, on the other hand, believe that punishment is justifiable purely on retributive grounds. That is to say, according to them, only the past fact that a man has committed a crime is sufficient enough to justify the punishment inflicted on him. But D.D. Raphael is found to reconcile between the two opposite views. According to him, a punishment is justified when it is both useful and deserved.
Both Kantian and virtue ethicists have differing views about what it takes to be a good person. Kantian ethicists believe that being a good person is strictly a matter of them having a “good will.” On the other hand, virtue ethicists believe that being a good person is a matter of having a good character, or being naturally inclined to do the right thing. Both sides provide valid arguments as to what is the most important when it comes to determining what a person good. My purpose in writing this paper is to distinguish between Kantian ethics and virtue ethics, and to then, show which theory is most accurate.