Murder For Murder: Breaking The Cycle
Murder for Murder: Breaking the Cycle
From a very early age, many people are all taught the basics of human morality whether they realize it or not. Through observation of parents, friends, television, religion, we see actions such as kindness, helpfulness, and respect. The most popular moral code that comes to mind is the “golden rule”: treat others, as you would want to be treated. When considering the death penalty it is obvious to observe that those committing the crime did not follow the “golden rule” at all and disregarded it entirely. The death penalty, also known as capital punishment, is a punishment of death ordered by state legislation to those who commit capital crime. A capital crime is ultimately an action of malice murder or …show more content…
The simple aspect of human dignity is ignored when considering punishments for those committing capital crimes. Yes, the action of those committing the crime is, at times, gruesome and horrible in nature but does that justify our actions to take another’s life? Do we dare say that our actions in return are moral when driven by hate and retaliation? To put another human being to death would not adhere to ethical virtue principles, yet we allow executions as if they are the valid moral consequence of wrongdoing. If the point of the death penalty is to send a message that heinous murder is wrong, then the message we return is counterproductive. The government practices an extreme variation of retributivism: the action of wrongdoing deserves punishment that is deemed necessary to the crime (543). In agreement that capital crimes deserve severe punishment, we should reevaluate what we consider “fit” for punishment in terms of moral permissibility. When considering “fit” punishment, it is necessary to implement virtue ethics with human dignity such as beneficence, humility, and justice towards human life. The death penalty does not consider human dignity because its focus is on the victim of the capital crimes while ignoring those executed. Therefore due to absence of morals utilized equally for victim and criminal, there is a lack of moral permissibility towards human dignity …show more content…
The absolute consequence of that “evil” is your actions in return inflicted on you (541). Therefore, preservationists of the death penalty feel that the “eye for an eye” concept is healthy for society. The philosophy an “eye for an eye” is a school playground tactic, not a justifiable means of punishment we project in the death penalty for moral
From a very early age, many people are all taught the basics of human morality whether they realize it or not. Through observation of parents, friends, television, religion, we see actions such as kindness, helpfulness, and respect. The most popular moral code that comes to mind is the “golden rule”: treat others, as you would want to be treated. When considering the death penalty it is obvious to observe that those committing the crime did not follow the “golden rule” at all and disregarded it entirely. The death penalty, also known as capital punishment, is a punishment of death ordered by state legislation to those who commit capital crime. A capital crime is ultimately an action of malice murder or …show more content…
The simple aspect of human dignity is ignored when considering punishments for those committing capital crimes. Yes, the action of those committing the crime is, at times, gruesome and horrible in nature but does that justify our actions to take another’s life? Do we dare say that our actions in return are moral when driven by hate and retaliation? To put another human being to death would not adhere to ethical virtue principles, yet we allow executions as if they are the valid moral consequence of wrongdoing. If the point of the death penalty is to send a message that heinous murder is wrong, then the message we return is counterproductive. The government practices an extreme variation of retributivism: the action of wrongdoing deserves punishment that is deemed necessary to the crime (543). In agreement that capital crimes deserve severe punishment, we should reevaluate what we consider “fit” for punishment in terms of moral permissibility. When considering “fit” punishment, it is necessary to implement virtue ethics with human dignity such as beneficence, humility, and justice towards human life. The death penalty does not consider human dignity because its focus is on the victim of the capital crimes while ignoring those executed. Therefore due to absence of morals utilized equally for victim and criminal, there is a lack of moral permissibility towards human dignity …show more content…
The absolute consequence of that “evil” is your actions in return inflicted on you (541). Therefore, preservationists of the death penalty feel that the “eye for an eye” concept is healthy for society. The philosophy an “eye for an eye” is a school playground tactic, not a justifiable means of punishment we project in the death penalty for moral