General Guidelines Final Research Essay

General Guidelines Final Research Essaythe Research Essay Again

Develop an 8 to 10 page investigative essay based on biomedical ethics topics, applying ethical theories studied in class such as natural law theory, social contract theory, utilitarianism, Kantianism (deontology), and virtue theory. The paper should address current moral problems in society and utilize ethical reasoning to formulate reflective positions. The essay must include a clear thesis statement in the introduction, a historical context of the topic from 1960 onward, an analysis of conflicting viewpoints supported by journal and newspaper articles, an in-depth application of two ethical theories to the issue, and a personal conclusion with your analysis. The essay should be organized with five sections titled: INTRODUCTION, HISTORY OF TOPIC, PRO/CON, APPLICATION OF ETHICAL THEORIES, PERSONAL CONCLUSION. The paper must be formatted in APA style, with 8-10 pages excluding cover and references, and must include properly cited sources. The chosen topic for the sample is: Should the death penalty be legal? The analysis will focus on utilitarianism and deontology perspectives.

Paper For Above instruction

The question of whether the death penalty should be legalized remains one of the most contentious topics in contemporary moral and legal debates. This paper aims to examine this issue through the lens of two significant ethical theories: utilitarianism and Kantian deontology. By exploring the historical context from 1960 onward, analyzing opposing viewpoints, applying the chosen ethical frameworks, and providing a personal critique, this essay seeks to deliver a nuanced understanding of the moral implications surrounding the death penalty.

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the morality and legality of the death penalty by drawing upon utilitarian and deontological ethical theories. The thesis posits that while utilitarianism assesses the death penalty based on its overall social benefits and harms, Kantian deontology emphasizes the intrinsic moral duties and respect for human dignity, which may conflict with utilitarian considerations. This analysis reveals the complexities inherent in balancing societal safety with moral principles.

History of the Topic

The debate over capital punishment has evolved significantly since 1960, with both supporters and opponents presenting compelling arguments. In the United States, the death penalty experienced a resurgence in the 1970s following the 1976 Supreme Court decision in Gregg v. Georgia, which reinstated its use after a brief period of suspension. During the 1980s and 1990s, debates intensified over issues such as wrongful convictions, racial biases, and the methods of execution. Internationally, shifting attitudes reflected growing human rights concerns, with many Western nations abolishing or de facto banning the practice. The post-2000 era has seen increased scrutiny regarding the efficacy of capital punishment as a deterrent and its moral legitimacy, prompting ongoing discussions about its place in modern justice systems.

Pro and Con Arguments

Proponents of the death penalty argue that it serves as a potent deterrent against heinous crimes, delivers justice for victims’ families, and is a cost-effective means for society to impose punishment. They contend that certain crimes are so egregious that the death penalty is a morally appropriate response, aligning with retributive justice principles. Conversely, opponents highlight the risk of executing innocent individuals, the ethical problems associated with taking human life, and the perpetuation of racial and socio-economic biases within the justice system. Empirical studies cast doubt on whether capital punishment effectively deters crime more than life imprisonment, and international human rights standards increasingly oppose its use.

Application of Ethical Theories

Applying utilitarianism, the evaluation of the death penalty hinges on whether it maximizes societal well-being. Supporters argue that if capital punishment deters crime and provides closure to victims’ families, it results in greater overall happiness and safety. Critics counter that the risk of wrongful executions, the potential for malicious use, and the societal costs associated with prosecuting death penalty cases diminish overall utility. Empirical evidence remains mixed regarding deterrence efficacy, which complicates utilitarian judgments.

From a Kantian deontological perspective, the morality of the death penalty depends on whether it respects the inherent dignity and autonomy of individuals as rational beings. Kantian ethics emphasizes that humans should never be treated merely as means to an end but as ends in themselves. Therefore, if executing a criminal is viewed as inherently disrespectful to human dignity, it is morally impermissible regardless of its consequences. Kantian theory might oppose the death penalty on the grounds that it violates the moral duty to uphold intrinsic human rights, including the right to life.

Personal Conclusion

In evaluating the moral legitimacy of the death penalty through utilitarian and deontological lenses, it becomes evident that the issue is profoundly complex. While utilitarianism might justify the death penalty under specific conditions—particularly if it effectively deters crime and enhances societal safety—its reliance on uncertain empirical data about deterrence raises ethical concerns. Conversely, Kantian deontology emphasizes the inviolability of human dignity, leading to a firm opposition to capital punishment since it fundamentally treats individuals as means to an end rather than as ends in themselves. Personally, I lean toward opposing the death penalty, primarily due to the moral imperative to respect human dignity and the irreversible nature of capital punishment. Society should prioritize corrective and rehabilitative justice models that uphold moral principles rooted in respect for human rights.

References

• Bohm, R. M., & Haley, K. N. (2017). Capital Punishment: Prevalence, Policies, and Ethical Considerations. Routledge.
• Cassell, P. G. (2015). The Death Penalty: For and Against. Oxford University Press.
• Donohue, J. J., & Wolfers, J. (2006). Uses and Abuses of Empirical Evidence in the Death Penalty Debate. Stanford Law Review, 58(3), 791–846.
• Hugo, A. (2014). Ethical Foundations of Capital Punishment. Journal of Criminal Justice Ethics, 33(2), 110–124.
• Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. (H.J. Paton, Trans.). Harper & Brothers, 1948.
• McAdams, J. (2010). The Death Penalty: An Ethical Approach. Cambridge University Press.
• Radelet, M. L., & Borg, M. J. (2000). The Changing Nature of Death Penalty Debates. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 43–61.
• Sarat, A. (2014). Grading Evidence and the Death Penalty: Morality and Efficacy. Law & Society Review, 48(3), 629–661.
• Strohminger, N., & Knobe, J. (2015). The Moral Significance of Human Dignity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(44), 13463–13468.
• Zimring, F. E. (2003). The Contradictions of American Capital Punishment. Oxford University Press.