Ethical Reasoning

Capital Punishment

Michael Hurrigan

PHI 208: Ethics and Moral Reasoning

David Smith

January 18st, 2021

Capital Punishment

Ethical Question

Is capital punishment for first-degree murder morally justified? 

Introduction

Societies agree that if individuals go against the law, they should be punished in relation to the crime committed. Differences are observed in terms of the punishment to be applied when dealing with serious crimes such as first-degree murder. Capital punishment, popularly known as the death penalty, is a significant variation that has led to a contentious debate between supporters and opponents (Deigh & Dolinko, 2011). First-degree murder typically attracts the harshest sentence, but this varies according to societies' moral standing and law rule.

Capital punishment is defined as the execution of an individual found guilty following the due legal process. Capital punishment, or the death penalty, is the form of legal punishment that involves putting someone to death as punishment for a capital offense (Thames, 2018). It can only be used when the guilty party is found to have committed murder. It applies to serious crimes such as first-degree murder. The death penalty is applied in countries worldwide to deter individuals from committing heinous crimes such as first-degree murder (Deigh & Dolinko, 2011). However, some countries have prohibited it in law as well as in practice. States in the US vary in terms of its application concerning how the prosecution calls for its application. For example, Texas applies the death penalty for individuals that have been convicted of capital murder.

Various ethical positions are held with regard to capital punishment. Supporters argue that capital punishment is suitable for heinous crimes such as capital murder. Additionally, it deters individuals from committing similar offenses. On the contrary, individuals against capital punishment argue that corruption violates human rights and does not offer the criminals a second chance to rethink their actions. The paper explains Kantianism's position on capital punishment based on the views that the founder of the theory, Immanuel Kant, shared on the form of punishment.

Explanation of the Ethical Theory

Kantianism is synonymous with the deontology ethical theory that was introduced by Immanuel Kant. The position held by Kant is based on the concept of retribution. It follows that retribution has been a widespread view that has been used to justify capital punishment over the years. Capital punishment was applied for various offenses in Europe in the past, and this could have informed Kant's ideas (Deigh & Dolinko, 2011). Notably, Kant recommended the application of capital punishment for murder. In Kant's day, capital punishment was recommended for treason, but he did not support its application in such a context. The application of capital punishment and deontology can be used to justify its application.

The theory's moral principles support its application while addressing capital punishment as the best sentence for first-degree murder. The first principle is the basis of the view, and it is regarded as enlightenment rationalism. According to the principle, an action can be right if it fulfills duty. Capital murder does not satisfy any obligation; therefore, it should be punished (Deigh & Dolinko, 2011). The second principle that is valuable to the theory is the categorical imperative that acts on all individuals in spire of their desires and interests. The categorical imperative principle was developed using various approaches. This leads to the universality principle that stipulates that an action is permissible if it applies to all individuals without contradiction. All individuals agree that capital murder is an atrocious crime that should be accorded a deserving punishment, which is the death penalty (Walsh & Hatch, 2018). The other principle states that human beings should not treat others as the means to an end. The rationalization principle explains that human beings are rational, and the law should guide their actions. Kant also offers exceptions as he draws the line between imperfect and perfect duties. Capital murder is wrong and is not covered in the peculiarities of duties discussed by Kant.

Deontology applies to a wide range of ethical issues in the modern one. One of the most contentious topics that can be explained using the topic is euthanasia. The moral question that relates to the matter states: Is euthanasia ethically justified as an approach for minimizing patients' suffering? According to Kantianism, enlightenment rationalism argues that actions are acceptable if they fulfill the duty. Euthanasia is defined as the termination of an individual's life. It is wrong for health practitioners to terminate human life as it goes against maintaining patients' welfare (Deigh & Dolinko, 2011). According to the categorical imperative, there exists a moral law that should be respected and observed by all individuals. The termination of human life is wrong despite their position or condition in life. Euthanasia goes against the universality principle that states that it should be universally applicable for an action to be moral. Views on euthanasia are sharply divided. Hence, the practice cannot be justified morally.

Application of the Ethical Theory

Judging from the fact that the core principle of deontological ethics is the categorical imperative, applying the ethical theory to capital punishment leads to the conclusion that the practice is unethical and immoral. There are basic laws such as the fundamental human rights that should be adhered to by all individuals. A fundamental human right is the right to life that asserts that one should not kill. First-degree murder offenders go against this universal law, and Kantianism argues that they deserve the death penalty. This is due to the aggravating factors surrounding the crimes they commit (Deigh & Dolinko, 2011). In most instances, capital murder entails heinous acts such as poisoning, killing a law enforcement officer in the line of work, or premeditation. As a result, individuals who commit such crimes should receive a deserving sentence: the death penalty.

The second principle that applies to Kantian ethics is universality. According to the principle, actions are permissible if they can be accepted internationally without any opposition. It has been identified that all people are against capital murder. This means that individuals that commit first-degree murder deserve capital punishment. While other ethical theories assert that the means justify the end, deontological ethics is based on the concept of duty (Deigh & Dolinko, 2011). Human beings should protect life at all costs, and there should be severe consequences when they fail.

Human beings are logical, which means that they undergo a comprehensive thought process before coming up with a decision. It is clear that individuals that commit murder think about it in most instances, and they do not show remorse for their actions (Deigh & Dolinko, 2011). Accordingly, Kant concluded that the death penalty could be an effective way of preventing individuals from committing murder. In summary, Kant proved that capital murder is wrong and can be deterred and reattributed using capital punishment.

References

Thames, B. (2018). How should one live? Introduction to ethics and moral reasoning (3rd ed.). San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education.

Deigh, J., & Dolinko, D. (2011). The Oxford handbook of philosophy of the criminal law. New York: Oxford University Press.

Walsh, A., & Hatch, V. L. (2018). Capital Punishment, Retribution, and Emotion: An Evolutionary Perspective. New Criminal Law Review, 21(2), 267-290.