Death Penalty Articulate a specific dilemma in a situation faced by a particular person based on that topic. The situation can be real or fictional. Summarize the dilemma. Defi
Topic: Death Penalty
Articulate a specific dilemma in a situation faced by a particular person based on that topic. The situation can be real or fictional.
- Summarize the dilemma.
- Define any needed key terms associated with the dilemma.
- Analyze the conflicts or controversies involved in the dilemma.
Revise and rewrite based on any feedback you received in your previous draft (week three).
*I will submit a draft to reference*
Reference and discuss any professional code of ethics relevant to your topic such as the AMA code for doctors, the ANA code for nurses, etc. State whether and how your chosen topic involves any conflicts between professional and familial duties or conflicts between loyalty to self and loyalty to a community or nation.
What in your view is the most moral thing for that person to do in that dilemma? Why is that the most moral thing? Use moral values and logical reasoning to justify your answer
Next, apply the following:
- Aristotle’s Golden Mean to the dilemma
- Utilitarianism to the dilemma
- Natural Law ethics to the dilemma
Which of those three theories works best ethically speaking? Why that one?
Why do the other two not work or not work as well?
Is it the same as what you said is the most moral thing earlier? Why or why not?
#1 House, R. (2009). The death penalty and the principle of goodness. The International Journal of Human Rights, 13(5), 680-688. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642980802533224
#2 Potter, N. (2009). Kant on punishment. The Blackwell Guide to Kant's Ethics, 179-195. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444308488.ch8
#3 Rachels, J., & Rachels, S. (2015). The elements of moral philosophy. McGraw-Hill Europe.
#4 Ross, D. (2013). Foundations of ethics. Read Books.
#5 Subjecting ourselves to capital punishment. (2011). Kant and Applied Ethics, 117-138. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118114162.ch5
(APA)
- 4-5 pg
1
Death Penalty
Alliyah Stephens-Brodie
PHIL-347
RANDALL OTTO
August 7, 2022
1. 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.
2. Articulate and then evaluate the ethical positions using Kantian ethics (that is, the categorical imperative) relative to the long-standing debate on the death penalty
The ethical standing of the death penalty is called into question in Kant's imperative. According to Kant's imperative, capital punishment, sometimes known as the death penalty, is immoral. According to Kant, we should always judge our actions based on the motivations behind them. This term also suggests that consideration of ethical issues is unnecessary. Kant was a proponent of the use of the death penalty for murder. According to Kant, persons should only be punished for the act of committing a crime, and the severity of their punishment should be commensurate to the severity of the crime they committed. Retributivism, of which Kant's views on retribution are a classic example, is often thought to provide a compelling justification for capital punishment. As might be predicted, this is true because of retributivism, of which Kant's views on retribution are a classic example (Vatter, 2022).
The death penalty is ineffective as a deterrent against future criminal behavior since it is neither necessary nor likely to prevent future criminal activity. The death penalty is not the only form of effective punishment; incarceration and monetary reparation can have the same effect on the perpetrator without putting their lives in danger. A death penalty is a form of capital punishment, which means that a person who receives it will be put to death. The purpose of punishment should be to discourage criminal behavior rather than exact revenge; hence, the death sentence serves none of these purposes and is therefore ineffective and inhumane. The certainty with which punishment is delivered is more effective than the harshness of the punishment itself in terms of discouraging inappropriate behavior (Vatter, 2022).
Annotated Bibliography
House, R. (2009). The death penalty and the principle of goodness. The International Journal of Human Rights, 13(5), 680-688. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642980802533224
This essay looks at the issue at hand by examining it through the lens of the new ethical framework that is supplied by the Principles of Goodness. The principle seems to be a more stringent universal judgment than Kant's categorical imperative at first glance; nevertheless, the application here is different from Kant's conceptions. The moral guidance provided by this Principle enables one to make a case for either the absence of the death penalty or for its application, with the conditions under which it would be carried out being exceptionally transparent in comparison to many traditional and contemporary assertions.
Potter, N. (2009). Kant on punishment. The Blackwell Guide to Kant's Ethics, 179-195. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444308488.ch8
In this article, we look at how Kant's philosophical views on ethical principles and retribution can be reconciled with the nearly uniform resistance that exists today toward the use of the death penalty. It's possible that looking at things from Kant's point of view will help us find a middle ground on contentious subjects like women's rights and the death sentence. Both of his beliefs go opposed to what is generally accepted as true. This article investigates the ways in which Kant's theories could be adapted in such a way as to make them comply with contemporary consensuses while still being acknowledged as being Kantian.
Rachels, J., & Rachels, S. (2015). The elements of moral philosophy. McGraw-Hill Europe.
The article delves into several different schools of thought about ethics, including utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, and the social contract. However, the primary focus of the book is on how we go about our daily lives. Each of the numerous possibilities receives extensive coverage throughout a few chapters. Because of this, the primary purpose of this article is not to provide a unified truth regarding the moral issues raised in the book (such as the justness of the death penalty), but rather to provide contrasting viewpoints so that the reader can decide for themselves how to approach the book's many different scenarios. This is because the article's primary goal is to provide a unified truth regarding the moral issues raised in the book (such as the justness of the death penalty). After reading the book, you might discover that you agree with some of the concepts it outlines, but at the same time you disagree with others.
Ross, D. (2013). Foundations of ethics. Read Books.
In the essay, Ross challenges and criticizes utilitarianism and Kant's ethical philosophy. To put it another way, the two notions are rejected because they make moral life simpler. Ross argues that none of the explanations adequately capture a man's deepest moral convictions. However, Ross thinks that Kant oversimplifies the moral world. Ross argues that common sense errors plague utilitarianism. It incorrectly assumes that the maximization of various intrinsic benefits is the attribute that makes right acts right (Ross, 2013). Ross argues that right and wrong should serve as the cornerstones of any viable ethical framework. What is acceptable and what is not should be determined by any overarching principle. As Ross argues, there is a single premise upon which all moral obligations rest. Depending on one's pre-existing beliefs about the death penalty, this article may cause them to shift. It has been argued that a principle should not be used to define morality.
Subjecting ourselves to capital punishment. (2011). Kant and Applied Ethics, 117-138. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118114162.ch5
Kant's imperative is brought to the forefront of the discussion even though this article does not contribute anything new to the conversation about the topic being discussed. Any instance, including the controversial question of whether the death penalty should be applied, must be judged in accordance with the overarching rules and principles that Kant advocated. According to this point of view, the Kantian imperative is an ethical prerequisite for any person who is working toward the achievement of a goal. The author of the article argues that we have a responsibility to conduct ourselves in an ethical manner because of the categorical imperatives presented above. You should let that maxim be the only thing that directs your behavior in the same way that you may aspire for it to become a moral absolute. In other words, you should let it be the only thing that guides your behavior. Kant's imperative serves as a supporting point for the author of the article's argument, which he establishes by using it. Considering this, I am certain that we ought to let morality lead the path that our actions take, and I say this with complete confidence.
References
Ogonah, A. (2022). The interplay between reason and emotions in ethical decision-making processes (Doctoral dissertation, Arrupe Jesuit University).
Vatter, M. (2022). Dignity and Human Vulnerability: Colin Bird, Human Dignity and Political Criticism; Andrea Sangiovanni, Humanity without Dignity. Moral Equality, Respect, and Human Rights. Journal of Social and Political Philosophy, 1(2), 234-247.
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.
