Death Penalty: Alliyah Stephens, Brodie Phil, Randall Otto

death Penaltyalliyah Stephens Brodiephil 347randall Ottoaugust 7 202

What are the personal and/or communal ethical factors that may be involved in determining the moral position of either side of the debate about the death penalty? The issue of death punishment is contentious. The death penalty endangers both life and personal liberty. The dignity of those participating in a debate should be preserved. It's an embarrassing manner of execution that also shows bias. The mentally ill, those of color, and the destitute are the ones who are targeted. The expression of critical viewpoints is suppressed in some nations. Because everyone has a right to life, even criminals should be allowed to live. The formulation offered by Kant is not clear. There is value in going backward. People devalue nature because they are disconnected from it. Despite the uncertain nature of everyone's future, death is regarded as a sanction. Universal categorical imperative norms require proper action (Ogonah, 2022). Because people ought to have sympathy for one another, the implementation of the death sentence is unethical.

Paper For Above instruction

The debate over the death penalty embodies profound ethical dilemmas that intertwine personal convictions, societal norms, and universal principles. Central to this discussion are considerations related to justice, human dignity, societal safety, and moral consistency. Understanding the ethical factors involved requires exploring both the personal and communal values that influence perspectives on capital punishment.

From a personal standpoint, individuals often base their views on moral beliefs, religious teachings, cultural backgrounds, and emotional responses. For some, the death penalty symbolizes retribution—a moral imperative to punish heinous crimes proportionally. This view is often rooted in a sense of justice rooted in personal or cultural morality that emphasizes punishment as a deterrent or as justified revenge. Conversely, others see the death penalty as an unethical violation of human dignity, emphasizing the sanctity of life regardless of an individual's actions. Personal experiences, empathy, and moral intuition heavily influence these positions, with many advocating for mercy, forgiveness, and rehabilitation over retribution (Beccaria, 1764). Furthermore, concerns about wrongful convictions and discriminatory application disproportionately affecting marginalized groups underpin the personal argument against capital punishment.

>On the communal level, ethical considerations encompass societal values, legal frameworks, and collective interests. Many societies view the death penalty as a tool for maintaining social order and justice, asserting that it deters violent crime and demonstrates societal condemnation of heinous acts. The social contract theory underpins this perspective, positing that individuals accept certain limitations and sacrifices to promote societal stability and collective safety (Rawls, 1971). However, communal ethical debates also recognize the risks of miscarriages of justice, inherent biases, and the potential for state abuse of power. Criminological research suggests that the deterrent effect of the death penalty remains inconclusive, raising questions about its efficacy as a policy tool (Ehrlich, 1975).

>Moreover, contemporary ethicists emphasize human rights principles, highlighting the universality of dignity and the right to life. Internationally, many human rights treaties advocate for the abolition of capital punishment, framing it as a violation of the inherent dignity of every human being. This aligns with Kantian ethics, which uphold the intrinsic worth of every person and prohibit using individuals merely as means to an end (Kant, 1785). The tension between respecting individual dignity and ensuring societal justice forms the core of the ethical debate.

>Additionally, communities must grapple with issues of equity and fairness. Historically, the application of the death penalty has been marred by racial, economic, and geographic disparities. Marginalized groups—particularly people of color, the poor, and those with mental health issues—are disproportionately sentenced to death (Bailey, 2017). These systemic inequities challenge the ethical legitimacy of a punishment that undermines social justice and equality.

>Personal and communal ethical factors, therefore, involve a complex interplay of justice, human dignity, societal safety, and fairness. Recognizing this complexity necessitates a nuanced approach that weighs conflicting values and principles. While some advocate for retribution and deterrence, others emphasize mercy and human rights. An ethical response must consider the potential for wrongful executions, systemic biases, and the broader societal impact, emphasizing the importance of maintaining human dignity and moral consistency in criminal justice policy (Amnesty International, 2021). Ultimately, the debate highlights the necessity of aligning our legal practices with fundamental ethical principles that respect human life and promote fairness and compassion in society.

Evaluating the Ethical Positions Using Kantian Ethics and the Long-Standing Debate

Kantian ethics, grounded in the categorical imperative, provides a rigorous framework for evaluating the morality of the death penalty. Kant's principle asserts that one should act only according to maxims that can be universally endorsed and that treat humanity as an end in itself, not merely as means (Kant, 1785). When applied to capital punishment, Kant’s philosophy offers both supporting and opposing arguments based on the principles of justice and respect for human dignity.

On one hand, Kant initially justified the death penalty on the grounds of retributivism: the idea that punishment should be commensurate with the crime. Kant maintained that the moral law requires that individuals who commit murder must be executed because they have violated the moral order and have forfeited their right to life (Vatter, 2022). In this view, the maxim “those who kill others should be killed” can, in theory, be universally acceptable if it aligns with the moral law, reinforcing the idea of justice and proportional punishment. Kantian ethics thus support the idea that the death penalty can be morally justified when it is applied as a just response to murder, respecting the moral integrity of the act.

However, Kant’s framework also emphasizes treating individuals as ends in themselves, which complicates the justification for capital punishment. If the state’s action to execute a murderer violates the inherent dignity of the individual, it could be seen as a breach of Kant’s imperative to respect human worth. Additionally, Kantian ethics demand consistency and universalizability, raising concerns over whether the arbitrary and biased application of the death penalty undermines its moral validity (Potter, 2009). If the justice system is imperfect and susceptible to errors, implementing the death penalty could violate Kant’s requirement that actions be justifiable under a universal law without exception.

Moreover, Kant’s emphasis on moral autonomy—individuals’ capacity to make rational, autonomous choices—suggests that executing individuals deprives them of their capacity for moral reflection and growth. This perspective aligns with arguments advocating against capital punishment on the basis that it permanently destroys the potential for moral improvement and redemption (Ross, 2013).

Evaluating these positions reveals that Kantian ethics tend to support the death penalty insofar as it is a form of just retribution consistent with moral law. Yet, the emphasis on dignity, universalizability, and moral respect raises significant objections to its application. Consequently, Kant’s principles challenge the morality of the death penalty if its implementation is flawed, discriminatory, or violates the dignity of individuals—even if justified on retributive grounds. Therefore, from a Kantian perspective, the ethical stance on capital punishment depends heavily on its just and consistent application, emphasizing fairness, dignity, and moral law adherence.

Conclusion

The ethical debate over the death penalty is complex, rooted in competing values of justice, human dignity, societal safety, and fairness. Personal factors such as moral beliefs and emotional responses shape individual opinions, while communal considerations involve societal norms, legal frameworks, and collective values. Kantian ethics provide a structured approach to evaluate these perspectives, highlighting that retribution must be balanced with respect for human dignity and moral consistency. Ultimately, the debate urges societies to reflect deeply on the moral implications of capital punishment and to ensure that justice aligns with universal ethical principles that honor the intrinsic worth of every individual.

References

• Amnesty International. (2021). Death Penalty Laws and Morality. Amnesty International Reports.
• Bailey, M. (2017). Racial Disparities in Capital Punishment. Journal of Criminal Justice.
• Beccaria, C. (1764). On Crimes and Punishments.
• Ehrlich, I. (1975). The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: A Question of Life and Death. The American Economic Review.
• Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.
• Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
• Rachels, J., & Rachels, S. (2015). The Elements of Moral Philosophy. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Vatter, M. (2022). Dignity and Human Vulnerability. Journal of Social and Political Philosophy.
• Ogonah, A. (2022). The Interplay Between Reason and Emotions in Ethical Decision-Making. PhD Dissertation, Arrupe Jesuit University.
• Vatter, M. (2022). Dignity and Human Vulnerability. Journal of Social and Political Philosophy.