It’s immoral to be in favor of the death penalty. People who support it believe that by executing criminals well prevent them from murdering again, and they feel they deserve to feel the feeling of cruelty as they did to others. Citizens of the United States are fond to similar privileges and assurances. As Americans, we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. People believe that if a murder takes this rights from a person, why should they still be connected to society?
Through these formulas come the idea of imperfect and perfect duties. A perfect duty is moral truth that must be followed at all times, while an imperfect duty is one that should be followed some of the time depending on the circumstance. Kant expresses that we have perfect duties to respect other’s freedoms and we have a perfect duty to tell the truth. The AHA uses these two duties in their discussions on teaching and the shared values of historians. First off, the AHA states that presenting multiple perspectives on history are parts of the truths of history, therefore according to Kant we have a perfect duty to truth and presenting multiple perspectives.
He argued that the first precept of this natural law was that “…good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided… [and] there is in man an inclination to good, according to the nature of his reason, which nature is proper to him”. Additionally, he stated that “...the natural law can be blotted out from the human heart, either by evil persuasions, just as in speculative matters errors occur in respect of necessary conclusions; or by vicious customs and corrupt habits”. C.S. Lewis’ concurs with this idea of reason and heart through his illustration in The Abolition of Man: “The head rules the belly through the chest”. In this illustration, each of the anatomical features represents aspects of the nature of man.
Deontological ethical theory, is frequently identified with Immanuel Kant, as he believed from his theory of duty, that If something is wrong then it is always wrong. "Deontological ethical theory is an ethical theory that evaluates behavior in terms of adherence to duty or obligation, regardless of consequences" (Mitchell, 2015, p.455).Deontology considers that moral actions are equivalent to abiding by the rules.Basically this assists us in understanding which behaviors are acceptable and which are prohibited. "Deontological theory holds that human beings have a certain duty of action, and doing the right ethical thing means doing our human duty in a given situation" (South University, 2016,week 5). The main objective of deontology is to establish balanced rules in addition to acting morally which essentially is ones
Kant’s principal of morality is a standard of rationality he called the “Categorical Imperative.” He believes that there is one, ‘super rule’ that helps you decide if the maxims you are following are morally sound or not. Kant believes one’s duty means acting in accordance with certain moral laws/imperatives, “so act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means.” [Section 2. pg 14]. Therefore, Kant is saying that moral worth appears to require not only that one’s actions be motivated by duty, but also that no other motives are a driving factor in getting to that end. He further elaborates on this by stating that reason does not simply find the means to end, it decides on proper ends. This all leads to the conclusion that someone of moral worth in the eyes of Kant is only morally ideal if their actions are done from
The government aside from compassion for those effected by the convict, supports the penalty because of “cost of death vs. life in prison” according to Robert Evnen, Nebraskan for capital punishment attorney. He claims “… ‘cost studies’…” essentially reveal most murders take a life without parole which costs the government inmate finances whereas the penalty gives the offender no room for an appeal. Capital punishment puts an end to a life that deserves ending due to the choices made of ending an innocent person. In my opinion, looking at both sides as to why and why not the death penalty should be instated or abolished, I agree that it should be a constitutional law reinforced in every state, with each state continuing to define capital punishment as it chooses. Although it violates some of the constitutions laws in different ways, it saves the government
In contrast, evil takes over when a good person is no longer able to empathize or care about another human being. By attempting to do nothing, good people show little concern for what evil is capable of doing. In order to stop evil and malicious acts from happening in society people are responsible for enforcing laws that stop these terrible acts, but by ignoring evil society allows good people to turn cruel and allows innocent bystanders to be hurt. The first ways in which evil can succeed is when people who try to do good ultimately end up doing harm. Evil can have many different meanings.
The moral permissibility of Julie and Mark’s act can also be determined through the moral theories of minimalism and maximalism. According to minimalism, morality is in “our relationships with others and, more precisely, of wrong done to others...and early on, we make a distinction between three different domains, morality, conventions and personal…[in this regard,] only crimes with victims are immoral” (Ogien, 2011, 44, 47). From a minimalism perspective, Julie and Mark’s act was not immoral. Contrastingly, maximalism, states that “some victimless crimes are immoral” (Ogien, 2011, 44). Agreeing that some victimless crimes are immoral (though not in the case of Julie and Mark), I employ the ethics of autonomy to argue for the permissibility of Julie and Mark’s act.
This may not relieve you from guilt, because you most likely don’t care, but these are suggestive solutions to eradicating marginalized groups. Reflecting on social disadvantages and creating actions to abolish them is a beneficial start. Redemption is forgiving others, nevertheless redeeming others is the rarest and most superior form of redemption. Halberstam’s use of humanization in “Imagined Violence” to demonstrate a recognized sense of human dignity, representing guidance between those in need of assets. Violence is impossible to obliterate, nonetheless violence can be interpreted in a different way.
Involving myself into the scenario makes me just as guilty of murder as those who were responsible for placing Larry Moe and Curly on the tracks. Therefore it would be morally wrong to apply the switch in the Switch Case scenario. In the Fat Man Case, I would choose not to push Curly onto the tracks in order to save Moe and Larry. Pushing Curly only the track is a deliberate act of murder, despite being an effective way of saving more lives and promoting less pain. In this case, Curly is not tied up, so with no intervention, Curly could go about his day without being affected by the deaths of Larry and Moe.
This is certainly a conflicting issue. While it is fair to value the welfare of law abiding citizens over the welfare of convicted felons, placing restricting on felons presents the issue of those felons lacking the ability to become a contributing member of society. Like you mentioned, that can provide the push needed for them to return to crime rather than working towards a steady life of their own. Further research into the costs and benefits of such restrictions is necessary to determine whether these types of restrictions actually do benefit society overall like they intend to.
After reading about the forfeited right theory, I agree that the theory is not only ethical, but it is quite intriguing. “The rights forfeiture theory of punishment contends that punishment is justified when and because the criminal has forfeited their right not to be subjected to this hard treatment” (Wellman, 2012, p. 371). When a person is taken into custody, their rights have been taken away from them. All of their rights except the Miranda Rights in which the individual is entitled to. So that means if a person commits a crime then they have already violated thier own rights therefore, they should not be complaining about their rights being violated.
It’s unfortunate that these individuals had to face this by themselves, without the proof, evidence, and validation. Capital punishment treats murders with more mercifulness and pride than the victim the murders has killed. The death penalty is the simplest method to cleanse the nation. Criminals would fear the action of government is willing to do. The act of crimes would decrease profoundly.