LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES
The Revelational Christian Ethic and Capital Punishment
ETHC101-B01
Introduction to Ethics
Capstone Essay
by
Melissa Marando
March 8, 2024
Contents
I. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………… 1
II. Natural Law Ethics…………….………………………………………………………... 1
III. Natural Law and Capital Punishment ………………………………………………….. 3
IV. Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………... 7
V. Bibliography …………………………………………………………………………… 8
Introduction
Should an ethical individual support the death penalty? That is the question which I will
explore and attempt to answer in this paper. In my efforts to answer this question, I will delve
into and draw from the theory of natural law to ascertain whether or not this particular ethical
belief system supports or condemns the practice of taking another human life as punishment.
At first glance, one may point to the works of thinkers like John Locke and Thomas
Aquinas to argue that the use of capital punishment is not in contrast with the tenants of natural
law so long as the act is carried out for the greater good of the community or possibly to remove
an evil from a society, or to maintain order; however, understanding whether capital punishment
should be supported or disavowed will require comparing and contrasting the different works of
these thinkers with the basic theory of natural law which asserts that certain moral principles are
intrinsic to human nature and guide our actions, transcending cultural norms and societal rules.
Further complicating this issue is the need to observe certain contrasting principals of
natural law such as that life, health, liberty and property are to be protected above all and valued
in comparison with other beliefs that the carrying out of justice is good and thus plays an
important role in preserving the greater good of the community. These conflicting principals
cannot be looked at in isolation without considering its counterparts and taking a rational
approach towards answering the question of whether or not capital punishment should be
condoned or condemned.
I will approach this complicated issue by first discussing the methodology that I believe
should be followed when confronting moral conflicts such as Capital Punishment. I will then
utilize this methodology when answering the question, “Should an ethical person support the
death penalty?” It is my goal to show that as an ethical good person - who is truly following the
eternal and intrinsic moral code established by God – one should condemn and not support the
use of the death penalty as a form of punishment against fellow human beings.
Natural Law Ethics
Natural law theory encompasses the idea that there is a certain moral code or order that
was created by God. This moral order is, in effect, an extension of God’s will, which is ingrained
into the universe itself. Natural law posits that humans possess certain inherent and inalienable
rights that no individual or group can violate or extinguish other than the creator.
While the use of the death penalty is permitted by the Constitituion of the United States
as a mechanism to redress wrongs and render justice, the death penalty itself would appear to run
contrary to the spirit of the Nation’s founders who were proponents of Natural Law and voted in
favor of the Declaration of Independence upon which the Constitution was framed and
constructed. When one considers that the very purpose and intent behind the creation of the
Declaration was to protect an individual’s divine and fundamental rights to “life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness,” one could argue that the answer is simple and that life is a fundamental
right and should not be taken by anyone including, the state, even if the act is purportedly done
in the name of justice. But in looking at the works of great thinkers and followers of natural law
such John Locke, Thomas Acquinas and others, one can see that there is not one consistent line
of thinking or authority on the use of capital punishment for those that adhere to the theory of
natural law. In fact, there are numerous divergent thoughts on the issue and application of capital
punishment within the context of natural law.
Where acts of violence, such as murder, work against humanity’s purpose to live a good
life, it would, of course, seem reasonable that the act of intentionally killing another human as
redress for a similarly heinous act runs contrary to nature itself and thus natural law.
Notwithstanding this line of thinking, great philosphers and thinkers such as Thomas Acquinas,
did not advocate that capital punishment may never be used, but rather took the position that the
justification for capital punishment depends on the historical and cultural circumstances and
needs of the community as well as the severity of the offense. For Aquinas, he considered
punishment as an evil but differentiated it from the evil of fault, which he considered an evil in
the will of the person committing the violent offense. Aquinas argued that punishment is evil as
it relates to the person suffering it but reasoned that punishment in and of itself is not per se evil
and even effectuates the good as it is an act of justice. Aquinas used the medical analogy of the
necessity of a doctor cutting off a diseased or infected limb in order to save the whole body (i.e.,
the good). Likewise, in the context of society, Aquinas argued that punishment helps to restore
and maintain civil order, or the common good. Thus, capital punishment, is seen as legitimate in
the sense that it serves the common good of deterring evil acts within the community and
removing the “bad” from the community. Importantly, in order for the punishment to be good,
however, its end must also be good in the sense that it not only helps to restore or maintain order,
but reforms the bad actor or deters others from committing similar acts.
Echoing the reasoning set forth in Thomas Aquina’s defense of the use of capital
punishment (Summa TheologiaeII-II, Q. 64, a.2), John Locke, in his Second Treatise on
Government, advocates both a natural right to life yet defends the death penalty for murderers. In
Locke’s view, a murderer who has violated another’s right to life has declared himself a
“noxious creature” (Treatise, sections 10-11) who has forfeited his own right to life and may
be subject to execution for the good of society. Locke posited that government’s main function
is to protect the inherent rights of individuals (i.e., life, health, liberty and property). For Locke,
natural law is an integral part of the human existence and the “state of nature.” (Washington
University Jurisprudence Review Vol. 7:367, p. 376). As Locke states, “[t]he state of nature has
a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one . . . that being all equal and independent, no
one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.” (Locke). In order to uphold
natural law, Locke reasoned that the “rational man has the right to punish criminals.” “For if no
one had such a right the law of nature would be in vain.” For such a punishment as capital
punishment to be justified, however, Locke believed two things were required: (1) that the one
who carries out the punishment has the appropriate authority to do so, and (2) that the
punishment be directly useful for some greater good. (2 JOHN LOCKE, A Second Letter
Concerning Toleration, in THE WORKS OF JOHN LOCKE 281 (2d ed. 1722). For Locke, the
right to punish was rooted in the individual’s inherent interest in self-preservation. (A. John
Simmons, Locke on the Death Penalty, 69 PHIL. 471, 474 (1994)). Locke’s argument was that
the state’s right to punish “stems from the right we possess as individuals in the natural condition
to defend ourselves against the assaults of those who transgress the laws of nature.” (Brian
Calvert, Locke on Punishment and the Death Penalty, 68 PHIL. 211, 219 (1993)). Thus, by
transgressing the laws of nature, the theory goes that the offending individual has therefore
placed himself outside of the protections of the community and may be subject to the ultimate act
of execution for the greater good of the community. (LOCKE, supra note 34, at 103).
Notwithstanding the works of thinkers like Aquinas and Locke, it is important to note,
however, that there is not complete support among followers of natural law regarding the use of
capital punishment. For other thinkers such as John Finnis (a practicing catholic and advocate of
the New Natural Law), natural rights must play a prominent role in the substantive laws of a
nation. Finnis’ thesis on the subject is based on the idea of values or basic “goods” and the idea
that there are basic goods which must always be protected and woven into the legal system itself.
In looking at the basic values which Finnis thought ought to be protected these include, life,
knowledge, friendship, sociability, play, aesthetic experience, practical reasonableness and
religion. (John Finnis, Natural Law (1st edn, New York University Press, Reference Collection
1991)). In his questioning of the Catholic Church’s historical interpretations of scripture and
those who interpret it as supportive of capital punishment, Finnis cites to the doctrine (Gaudium
et SpesK51.3) in which Vatican II asserted its position on abortion which states “sacredness of
human life is predicated of every human life, not as pious rhetoric, but as summarizing a
doctrine:KGod alone is the lord of life and death.” On the issue of capital punishment, Finnis
raises the question whether such a practice is actually contrary to the church’s interpretations of
scripture purportedly permitting capital punishment as it violates the respect for human life (and
human dignity) that is required of everyone, including state actors, because “to intend to kill is to
treat oneself as having a lordship over life and death that is God’s alone.” (Intentional Killing Is
Always Wrong: The Development Initiated by Pius XII, Made by John Paul II, and Repeated by
Francis, John Finnis, August 22, 2018). In this regard, the argument can be made that, to Finnis,
life, as a fundamental and basic good must take precedence in the substantive legal system and
that where one commits murder, he should not be subject to the ultimate penalty capital
punishment as life must be protected as one of societies’ most basic goods. In looking at the
work of Finnis, it can be observed that there is, in fact, opposition, not uniform support for the
ultimate penalty of capital punishment by some followers of natural law.
Captial Punishment
One of the most serious ethical and legal dilemmas facing the United States and countries
around the world is how to address, deter and implement justice for the most heinous of crimes
against humanity, murder. For centuries, societies have toiled with and debated the idea of using
execution (capital punishment) as a means of redress and justice against those who have taken
another’s life intentionally. In the context of moral ethics, there are several diverging schools of
thought. For believers of the Old Testament, they point to such passages as Genises 9:5-6;
Exodus 21:12-16; Leviticus 24:17-20; Numbers 35:16-18 to say that capital punishment is
permitted for the gravest offenses against human beings such as murder. For example, Genesis
9:6 says, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of
God has God made man." Conversely, those who believe in and follow the New Testament argue
that Jesus’ sacrifice of his own life made it unnecessary for murderers to be put to death and
forever established the sanctity of human life and dignity above all else. They point to Jesus’
teachings of forgiveness and compassion for sinners to say that capital punishment runs counter
to Jesus’ teachings and is further in contrast with God’s will and for the preservation of human
life, even the lives of sinners. As discussed above, there are divergent opinions among followers
of natural law about the idea of using capital punishment. To some, capital punishment is
rational and just in that it helps to maintain order in society by removing evil actors and deterring
other individuals from committing similarly violent acts. To others, the sacredness of human life
should dictate that causing intentional death by means of execution is intrinsically wrong and
unnatural and should not be carried out whether by private individuals or the state.
Notwithstanding the various positions taken by followers of Natural Law in regard to
capital punishment, this writer believes that Natural Law provides a sufficient framework to
resolve the moral question. So which theory on the subject do I believe best resolves the issue?
Following the reasoning of Finnis as outlined above, this writer believes that the sanctity of
human life, even that of a murderer, ought to be preserved and protected as a fundamental basic
human value or good. While I find the argument that carrying out capital punishment is an
unfortunate necessity to preserve the common good persuasive, I am not convinced or compelled
enough by this argument to support the use of capital punishment. I believe that if one is truly
trying to do good and to live a good life in a manner that God willed in the creation of the
universe, one must not succumb to the thinking that intentionally taking another’s life by
execution is in keeping with Natural law principals or the rationalized construct that it is for the
“greater good.” There are means by which the state or a community can protect the good and
innocent against evil such the implementation of life in prison, which both preserves human life
while giving a chance for the murder to repent and seek forgiveness, which is much more in
keeping with the idea that life is a sacred basic right given to all human beings that cannot be
taken by anyone except our creator, God.
Regarding the argument that the death penalty is a much more efficient manner of justice
that is both good in the sense that it deters similar acts and maintains order, but also saves
community resources, this argument is unconvincing. As studies have shown, the use of capital
punishment has failed to prove that it is an effective deterrent. While I do not dismiss that there
is a deterrent effect and offers some means of maintaining order, this does not outweigh the
overarching importance of maintaining human life and dignity. Murders still happen every day in
every country throughout the world. Thus, it is my opinion that deterrence may not be offered as
a rational basis for the use of the death penalty. Moreover, I personally find the argument that
capital punishment preserves and saves community resources to be repugnant and ridiculous. For
one to purport to be good and a follower of God’s will yet support the use of the death penalty as
means to save resources, I find this to be a completely misguided approach to the moral question
and one which certainly does not adhere to the natural law principal that life is a sacred basic
good given to all.
Finally, in light of the numerous cases in which innocent men and women have been
wrongly accused, convicted and put to death, it only seems rational and logical for a good society
to err on the side of caution when it comes to the implementation of the harshest of punishments
and thus avoid even the potential of taking the life of one innocent human being.
Conclusion
In the eyes of this writer, the use of capital punishment runs counter to the most basic
principals of natural law which is to protect the most basic and sacred of human rights, life.
While murder is no doubt tragic and justice through means of execution is tempting, it works
against the good to implement such harsh punishment intentionally. My conclusion is that the
use of the death penalty should be condemned and not supported in a good society that values
human life and dignity.
