Ethical Dilemma

Running head: MORAL CONTROVERSY 1

Moral Controversy: Capital Punishment

Kayla Ferrell

Chamberlain University

ETCH445N- Principles of Ethics

Professor Daniel Henke

MORAL CONTROVERSY 2

The death penalty, commonly known as capital punishment, is the execution of a criminal

based on his/her criminal act. In many countries the death penalty is legal, but many others

oppose the idea and consider it inhuman. Capital punishment is a high-ranked punishment, and it

is reserved for crimes that are extremely disturbing and serious, for instance, murder, drug

dealing, mass murder, and terrorist attacks. This topic is a sizzler; it is unsurprising that both

proponents and opponents of capital punishment have large followings. The proponents suggest

that the death penalty has advantages because it can be used to deter criminals by inculcating

dread in their hearts, causing them to quit committing crimes. They believe that taking a person’s

life is an eye for an eye situation; it should be met with the loss of the offenders life. With the

opponents, however, most studies conclude that the death sentence is ineffective because a

substitute punishment can be suggested without acting inhumanly, possible innocence, and even

the financial side of determining if the crime is worth the punishment through trial. A study done

in North Carlina shows that it costs $2.16 million more to sentence someone to execution that it

does for them to serve life in prison (Walter, 2019). Two theories that have extreme viewpoints

about capital punishment are ethical egoist theory and social contract theory. Based on their

proposed arguments, both theories consider the subject through a different lens.

Ethical egoism is about the satisfaction of one's ego through the agents of moral acts. In

its most extreme form, ethical egoism asserts that one acts properly if and only if it benefits

oneself. The obligation related to ethical egoism is moral, unlike in psychological egoist theory

which is truly self-centered. There are few basic arguments the ethical egoist would present

related to capital punishment. Firstly, it is defended based on the protection of citizens as a moral

obligation. People's safety and welfare are the moral obligations of any nation and society, and

protection of that requires punishments. Putting criminals to death can create a sense of fear

MORAL CONTROVERSY 3

among people and can stop them from committing a crime. If they know that in response to the

killing, they will get killed, they will not kill others in order to protect their life. Secondly, ethical

egoist believes in universal balance. The balance between evil and good can be brought through

capital punishment because it can help to deter crime and violence in society (Skyrms, 2014).

Thirdly, giving justice to the person who is murdered can only be provided by sentencing

the criminal to death. Justice means to treat everyone with equal rights and respect. If a person

gets murdered, the only equal justice for him would be blood. Capital punishment is for the

protection of people and the reduction of crimes. For instance, a criminal involved in drugs and

drug dealing is a serious crime. This can make people addicted, and taking it on a regular basis

can drastically harm their physical and mental health (Rachels, 2018). Ruining so many lives

through drugs and hanging one evil person does not even balance the equation, yet a lot of

people consider it against human rights.

Based on the ethical egoism approach, capital punishment is the right way to create a

balance between evil and good. The welfare and safety of society is the moral obligation of all.

Criminals and murderers can disturb the balance in society. Besides this, capital punishment is

necessary to bring justice to society. The death penalty is a source of teaching to criminals who

will think before committing a crime if they know the consequences. In a better case, it is also

possible that criminals will leave work that has nothing to offer but pain. Providing protection

and safety to the community requires making harsh decisions.

The theory of social contract says that the people that are living in the society

cooperatively are obedient to an argument that indicates the political rules of behavior. Living in

society requires basic rules and contracts that are socially accepted, which provides the

MORAL CONTROVERSY 4

realization that coordination is important for living in a society and its welfare. In the case of the

death penalty, social contract theory clearly states that if a rule is to break, the rulebreaker gets

punishments for it, but the punishment is not specified. The argument that social contract ethics

provide about capital punishment is that society has no right to take human life; instead, it is a

moral obligation to protect them. If an alternative for the death penalty exists, then why should

one increase the suffering and pain through the death penalty. Less severe alternatives like life

sentences exist then why put a soul through suffering instead of opting for the best possible

option (Morris, 2016).

Secondly, there is no evidence that the death penalty is stopping people from crimes like

murder. There is no valid reason how death sentences can be better than life imprisonment.

Studies have shown that the murder rate is not related to death penalty enforcement. There are

many cases where murders and serious crimes have been done with the enforced capital

punishment law. Taking another life through capital punishment means adding people to the

death list without bringing a positive change in society. Thirdly, the Death penalty is against

nature. Humans have no right to takes lives. Life and death are in the hands of nature, going

against nature means disturbing the cosmic balance. Furthermore, the death penalty is imposed to

bring balance and welfare to the society. Unfortunately, capital punishment has no such effect on

welfare and crime rate. It is a waste of human resources. Many of the criminals who have been

sentenced if provided with habitation turn out to be socially productive. It is possible that a

person feels remorse and sorry for his deeds and wants to do good, but the jury decides to hang

him/her (Van den Haag & Conrad, 2013). The possible positive act that he intended to do if not

sentenced will be demolished if capital punishment is imposed. Along with this, there are so

MORAL CONTROVERSY 5

many cases where people are found guilty at first and are sentenced to death and later found

innocent. Innocuous lives are taken in such cases which cannot be reciprocated.

As for the American Medical Association, they believe that a person can have their own

opinion on capital punishment, that being their own personal moral decision. This is disregarded

when you are in a profession that is dedicated to preserving life, stating that a medical

professional is not to participate in a legally authorized execution, including determining the

competence of a prisoner to be executed, monitoring vital signs, starting intravenous lines as a

port for the injection, consulting or supervising the injection team, attending the executing,

and/or certifying the death. Anything pertaining to helping out with capital punishment is pretty

much a no, showing their ethical stance on capital punishment to be on the opposing side

(American Medical Association, 2021). This is the same for the American Nurses Association.

They are opposed to capital punishment and any nurses participation in it as well (ANA Center

for Ethics and Human Rights, 2016).

To conclude, there are many different sides to this ethical issue that has been around for

quite some time. Some believe it is just because it will sway criminals from committing crimes,

while others believe that we have no right, as humans, to take the life of another into our own

hands. Being in the medical field, I have dedicated my life to helping others and could not stand

by and be a part of it. But who is to say that until they are dealt this hand, and their family is the

one that has suffered at the hands of another? Would your ethical viewpoints change in regards

to a choice between your professional and familial duties? This is a question that I believe cannot

be answered until you are faced with that situation.

MORAL CONTROVERSY 6

References

American Medical Association. (2021). Capital punishment: Code of Medical Ethics Opinion

9.7.3. American Medical Association. Retrieved September 20, 2021, from

https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/ethics/capital-punishment.

ANA Center for Ethics and Human Rights. (2016). Capital punishment and nurses' participation

in capital punishment - ana position statement. American Nurses Association.

https://www.nursingworld.org/practice-policy/nursing-excellence/official-position-

statements/id/capital-punishment-and-nurse-participation-in-capital-punishment/.

Morris, L. (2016). How to Get Away with Murder: An Analysis of the Moral Philosophies of

Niccoló Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes. Samford Undergraduate Research Journal,

47.

Rachels, J. (2018). The Elements of Moral Philosophy (9th Edition). McGraw-Hill Higher

Education (US). https://ambassadored.vitalsource.com/books/9781260213003

Skyrms, B. (2014). Evolution of the social contract. Cambridge University Press.

Van den Haag, E., & Conrad, J. P. (2013). The death penalty: A debate. Springer Science &

Business Media.

Walter, L. (2019). The Death Penalty: Going Beyond Moral Arguments. Carolina Justice Policy

Center. https://www.cjpcenter.org/the-death-penalty/.