Morality and the Death Penalty
Morality and the Death Penalty
In this paper, the two sides of the issue of the death penalty, pro and con, as well as the morality of the topic will be discussed. Opinions from both sides are presented and discussed, as I shape and present my argument on the subject. The debate has gone on for centuries, and has been brought to the forefront by great figures, both historical and contemporary. Some of their views are used here to piece together my case. In “The Grounding of the Metaphysics of Morals” Kant argues three major points. These can be summarized as follows:
(1) We are all, as human beings, ends in ourselves, and not to be used as mere means by others
(2) Respect for one’s own humanity involves respect for others;
(3) Morality is itself identical with freedom, and acting immorally involves being enslaved. Kant believed that moral judgments must be a priori judgments, meaning it is known prior to experience, and is known independently of experience. The principle upon which moral judgments should rely is known as The Categorical Imperative, meaning all our actions should be based on universal principles, unconditional rules that apply as a matter of reason or rationality. If a rule passes the Categorical Imperative test, then that action is morally permissible. If it fails the test, then that action is morally forbidden, and, therefore, the opposite action is morally required. In the case of the death penalty, a universal maxim must apply that is unconditional. In order to test the universality of any rule (such as the moral permissibility of state-sanctioned murder) an example that potentially contradicts the maxim can be imagined. In other words, under what conditions would it be morally impermissible for the state to sanction death penalty judgments against criminals? Kant, himself, however, felt that murderers should be put to death on account of the principle of equal and just retribution. That
In this paper, the two sides of the issue of the death penalty, pro and con, as well as the morality of the topic will be discussed. Opinions from both sides are presented and discussed, as I shape and present my argument on the subject. The debate has gone on for centuries, and has been brought to the forefront by great figures, both historical and contemporary. Some of their views are used here to piece together my case. In “The Grounding of the Metaphysics of Morals” Kant argues three major points. These can be summarized as follows:
(1) We are all, as human beings, ends in ourselves, and not to be used as mere means by others
(2) Respect for one’s own humanity involves respect for others;
(3) Morality is itself identical with freedom, and acting immorally involves being enslaved. Kant believed that moral judgments must be a priori judgments, meaning it is known prior to experience, and is known independently of experience. The principle upon which moral judgments should rely is known as The Categorical Imperative, meaning all our actions should be based on universal principles, unconditional rules that apply as a matter of reason or rationality. If a rule passes the Categorical Imperative test, then that action is morally permissible. If it fails the test, then that action is morally forbidden, and, therefore, the opposite action is morally required. In the case of the death penalty, a universal maxim must apply that is unconditional. In order to test the universality of any rule (such as the moral permissibility of state-sanctioned murder) an example that potentially contradicts the maxim can be imagined. In other words, under what conditions would it be morally impermissible for the state to sanction death penalty judgments against criminals? Kant, himself, however, felt that murderers should be put to death on account of the principle of equal and just retribution. That
References: Donald C. Abel, . Fifty Readings in Philosophy. 2nd. McGraw-Hill HumanitiesSocial SciencesLanguages, 2003. Ernest Van Den Haag, The Death Penalty: A Debate, (1983) Hugo Adam Bedau, The Death Penalty in America, 3rd Edition. (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1982) Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy), Mary Gregor (Ed), (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1997) John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism and Other Essays, Alan Ryan (Ed.), (New York: Viking Press, 1987) Mark Costanzo, “Capital Punishment Is Not Morally Justified,” Capital Punishment (San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2000) Richard Brandt, "The Utilitarian Theory of Criminal Punishment," Ethical Theory (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1959) The Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1952.)