Role Of Utilitarianism In The Theory Of Punishment

Utilitarianism in the Theory of Punishment – Utilitarian ideology states that it is our duty to whatever will increase the amount of happiness in the world. Applying this ideology to the Theory of Punishment may seem counterintuitive. Taken at face value, Utilitarianism is incompatible with punishment, because by definition punishment makes people unhappy, therefore, is immoral under the strict tenants of Utilitarianism. However, Utilitarians, do see the need for punishment. Punishment restores a victim’s sense of safety and security. It also removes criminals from society. Both of these actions are seen by Utilitarians are creating good or happiness in the world. Therefore, they believe that punishment is morally acceptable if the good the
He rejects it because it infringes on his belief of Dignity – Kant argues that humans have an intrinsic worth or dignity above all other things, because human life is irreplaceable. The distinction Kant draws between human life and mere things boils down to the notion that mere things are replaceable while human life is not. For example humans mourn the death of a friend, while we can make new friends, the friend we lost can never be replaced. Kant very clearly sets human life apart from all forms of life and objects. While Kant does not disagree that animals and other mere things have value, he does argue that they only have value because they provide value to humans. He reasons that humans have dignity above mere things because people have self-conscience desires and are rational agents. Human beings’ rational capacity creates conscientious actions that drive moral worth. Kant concludes that without this capacity there would be no moral dimension to our society. Utilitarianism punishment aims to rehabilitate criminals. Kant sees this as amoral because it violates their right to choose who they want to be, instead Kant ascribes to Retributivism. Retributivism – is guided by two