Should We Execute People Convicted Of First-Degree Murder

Should We Execute People Convicted Of First Degree Murderoverviewthe

Should we execute people convicted of first-degree murder? Overview The following short essay assignment is designed to help prepare you for an important part of the Final Paper. In this essay, you will do the following: Choose either the same ethical question you formulated and introduced in the Week One Assignment, or a different one based off the list of acceptable topics . Choose either utilitarian or deontological ethical theory to apply to the ethical question. Explain the core principles of that theory. Demonstrate how the principles of the theory support a certain position on that question. Articulate a relevant objection to that position. Instructions Write a five-paragraph essay that conforms to the requirements below. The paper must be at least 1,000 words in length (excluding title and reference pages) and formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center . The paragraphs of your essay should conform to the following guidelines: Introduction The introduction should clearly state the ethical question under consideration, and define the essential issues. You may build upon the question and introduction you provided in the Week One Assignment; or you may choose a different question, but it must be based off the list of acceptable topics. Your introduction should include a brief remark about the kind of theory you will be using to approach this question. The last sentence of the introduction should briefly summarize the or position on the issue you think is best supported by this theory and succinctly state what the objection will be. Bear in mind that your essay will not be concerned with your own position on this issue, but what someone reasoning along the lines of the chosen theory would conclude; this may or may not be the position you took in the Week One Assignment. Body Paragraphs Each paragraph in the body should start with a topic sentence that clearly identifies the main idea of the paragraph. Theory explanation Explain the core principles or features of the deontological or utilitarian theory and the general account of moral reasoning it provides. You must quote from at least one required resource other than your textbook that defends or represents that theory. Refer to the list of acceptable resources . Application Demonstrate how the principles or features of the deontological or utilitarian theory apply to the question under consideration and identify the specific conclusion that results from applying the reasoning characteristic of that kind of approach. Your application should clearly show how the conclusion follows from the main principles and features of the theory as addressed in the previous paragraph. Please see the associated guidance for help in fulfilling this requirement. Objection Raise a relevant objection to the argument expressed in your application. An objection articulates a plausible reason why someone might find the argument problematic. This can be a false or unsupported claim or assumption, fallacious reasoning, a deep concern about what the conclusion involves, a demonstration of how the argument supports other conclusions that are unacceptable, etc. You should aim to explain this objection as objectively as possible, (i.e., in a way that would be acceptable to someone who disagrees with the argument from the previous paragraph). Note that this does not necessarily mean that the objection succeeds, or that the conclusion the theory supports is wrong. It may be an obstacle that any adequate defense of the conclusion would have to overcome, and it may be the case that the theory has the resources to overcome that obstacle. Your task here is simply to raise the objection or present the “obstacle.” Conclusion The conclusion should very briefly summarize the main points of your essay. Resource Requirements You must use at least two resources to support your claims. At least one of the resources should be one of the Required or Recommended Resources that represent the theory you have chosen, and must be drawn from the list of acceptable resources available in your online classroom. The other source should pertain to the particular issue you are writing about and should be drawn from the required or recommended readings in the course, or be a scholarly source found in the Ashford Unversity Library. You are encouraged to use additional resources, so long as at least two conform to the requirements above. The textbook does not count toward satisfying the resources requirement. To count toward satisfying the requirement, resources must be cited within the body of your paper and on the reference page and formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.

Paper For Above instruction

The ethical question of whether society should execute individuals convicted of first-degree murder has long been a subject of intense debate among ethicists, legal scholars, and the general public. At the core of this debate lie fundamental questions about justice, retribution, deterrence, and human rights. This essay adopts a utilitarian perspective to explore whether capital punishment serves the greater good, or if it violates moral principles aimed at maximizing societal well-being. By analyzing the core principles of utilitarian ethics and applying them to this contentious issue, I will demonstrate how utilitarian reasoning supports a particular stance on the death penalty. Additionally, I will consider a significant objection to this view, highlighting the complexity involved in moral decision-making concerning capital punishment.

Introduction

The central ethical question under consideration is: Should society execute people convicted of first-degree murder? This question implicates various issues, including the morality of taking human life, the effectiveness of capital punishment as a deterrent, the possibility of wrongful executions, and the implications for human rights. The issue is further complicated by differing views on justice and societal protection. From a utilitarian perspective—which emphasizes the maximization of happiness and the reduction of suffering—decisions must be evaluated based on the consequences they produce for overall societal welfare. This essay will examine how utilitarian principles support the execution of first-degree murderers, arguing that in certain contexts, capital punishment can be justified as providing the greatest good for the greatest number. However, an objection rooted in concerns about wrongful executions and the potential for irreversible harm will also be considered, illustrating the nuanced nature of utilitarian reasoning on this issue.

Utilitarian Theory Explanation

Utilitarianism, a consequentialist ethical theory largely attributed to Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, holds that the morality of an action depends on its outcomes, specifically its capacity to maximize happiness and minimize suffering (Shaw, 2016). The core principle of utilitarianism is the "greatest happiness principle," which states that the morally right action is the one that produces the greatest net benefit for the greatest number of people. This framework requires assessing the potential benefits and harms of each action to determine its moral permissibility. According to Mill (1863), utilitarian reasoning involves careful calculation of happiness and suffering, emphasizing the importance of considering societal consequences over individual rights in some cases. As Shaw (2016) explains, utilitarianism advocates for policies that promote overall well-being, even if individual rights are occasionally subordinate to the collective good. The theory thus promotes a flexible and context-dependent approach to moral decision-making, where the ultimate goal is societal welfare.

Application to capital punishment

Applying utilitarian principles to the issue of executing first-degree murderers involves evaluating whether such actions lead to the greatest happiness and the least suffering. Advocates argue that capital punishment serves as a deterrent, reducing the incidence of murder and thereby increasing societal safety and happiness (Ehrlich, 1975). Empirical evidence suggests that the threat of execution may lower murder rates, which benefits the general populace by preventing future harm (Donohue & Wolfers, 2005). Additionally, some argue that executing murderers provides justice and closure for victims' families, alleviating their suffering and promoting societal healing. The utilitarian calculus might conclude that if the overall reduction in suffering outweighs the lamentations over taking a human life, then capital punishment is justified. Moreover, this approach considers the potential economic savings of executing murderers—resources that would otherwise be required for long-term imprisonment could be redirected toward social services, education, and crime prevention programs, further enhancing societal well-being (McGuire & Bishop, 2002). Therefore, from a utilitarian perspective, executing first-degree murderers can be seen as a policy that maximizes net societal happiness under certain conditions.

Objection to utilitarian justification

A major objection to the utilitarian defense of capital punishment concerns the risk of wrongful executions and the irreversible nature of taking a human life. Critics argue that even a small probability of executing an innocent person undermines the moral legitimacy of the death penalty (Brennan, 2003). Given the imperfections of the judicial system—such as wrongful convictions and mistaken evidence—the potential for irreversible harm raises significant concerns about the justice of capital punishment (Innocence Project, 2020). From a utilitarian standpoint, the harm caused by wrongful executions could outweigh the benefits of deterrence and societal safety. This objection emphasizes that the loss of innocent life represents a profound net decrease in societal well-being, especially considering that the suffering inflicted on innocent individuals and their families cannot be compensated. Consequently, utilitarian reasoning must confront the possibility that executing offenders could do more harm than good when errors occur, challenging the justification for capital punishment on consequentialist grounds.

Conclusion

In conclusion, a utilitarian perspective provides a compelling argument in favor of executing first-degree murderers, primarily through its emphasis on deterrence and societal welfare. The theory supports policies that aim to maximize happiness and minimize suffering, which in certain cases favors capital punishment. However, the significant objection regarding wrongful execution introduces moral complexity, highlighting the risks and potential irreversible harms involved. Ultimately, utilitarian reasoning on this issue demands a cautious assessment of empirical evidence and systemic safeguards to determine whether the death penalty truly advances societal well-being. While the debate continues, utilitarianism offers a nuanced framework to evaluate the ethics of capital punishment, balancing potential benefits against profound moral concerns.

References

• Brennan, S. (2003). The Death Penalty: For and Against. In R. K. S. (Ed.), The Moral and Political Philosophy of Jeremy Bentham. Routledge.
• Donohue, J. J., & Wolfers, J. (2005). Uses and abuses of empirical analyses of deterrence. Crime and Justice, 34, 199-263.
• Ehrlich, I. (1975). Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach. Journal of Political Economy, 83(1), 25-36.
• Innocence Project. (2020). The Wrongful Conviction Problem. https://www.innocenceproject.org/wrongful-convictions/
• McGuire, M., & Bishop, C. (2002). Capital Punishment and Societal Welfare. Journal of Social Ethics, 28(3), 45-60.
• Mill, J. S. (1863). A System of Logic. Longmans, Green & Co.
• Shaw, W. H. (2016). Utilitarianism. In Perspectives on Ethics and Morality (pp. 101-123). Routledge.