Capital punishment, otherwise called the death penalty, is when the state puts an individual to death as a way to punish them for a crime. At this time, the United States is the only Western democracy that has not abolished the use of capital punishment. Is using capital punishment for a crime moral? In this paper, I intend to examine this issue by employing utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, and care ethics. Drawing on these points of view, I will ultimately make a claim as to whether or not the use of capital punishment is moral. Utilitarian theory maintains that moral actions are ones that lead to a net increase in happiness for the community. Since punishment involves pain, utilitarians will generally only support punishment if it can lead to an overall increase in happiness. Jeremy Bentham took this further, writing, “All punishment is evil.” (228). He believed that purposefully inflicting suffering on someone that has committed a crime would only add more suffering to the world.
As a result, punishment can only be justified if it is absolutely the only …show more content…
They believed that punishing these criminals was the way to effectively cancel out the evil that was done by killing another person. Kant in particular believed that rational humans that kill ought to be killed in retribution. Under the first categorical imperative, murderers treats killing like a universal moral act when they kill someone, which means that it would be moral to kill them in return. Under the second categorical imperative, if a man kills someone, then the state has a duty to execute him, so that they can treat him as a rational human being with dignity, and as an end rather than simply a means to an end. Kant argued that murderers have a right to be punished, so that they can be recognized as rational individuals that have responsibility for their
As a result, punishment can only be justified if it is absolutely the only …show more content…
They believed that punishing these criminals was the way to effectively cancel out the evil that was done by killing another person. Kant in particular believed that rational humans that kill ought to be killed in retribution. Under the first categorical imperative, murderers treats killing like a universal moral act when they kill someone, which means that it would be moral to kill them in return. Under the second categorical imperative, if a man kills someone, then the state has a duty to execute him, so that they can treat him as a rational human being with dignity, and as an end rather than simply a means to an end. Kant argued that murderers have a right to be punished, so that they can be recognized as rational individuals that have responsibility for their