Death Penalty, Kantian Ethics, and Utilitarianism - Essay Example

? Death Penalty, Kantian Ethics and Utilitarianism Philosophy Consider the following argument: the death penalty must deter, no matter what statistics say because almost everybody would prefer life in prison to execution. Do you agree with that argument? Answer: Capital punishment or Death Penalty is still retained extensively around the world, especially in the Muslim nations and United States. According to the most recent statistics, 58 countries still retain it while 97 have completely abolished it. Human rights organizations and activists all over the world have been protesting against this punishment and are in favor of abolishing it globally. The argument that almost everyone would prefer life imprisonment than execution is often put forward by these people. But I do not agree at all with this argument as it does not hold any weightage in my point of view. My first argument against the claim of these activists is that they are talking solely about the preference of the criminals who commit capital crimes. They are not taking in the full picture here. The simple and straight forward truth of the matter is that most of these so called human right activists belong to either the neutral group or the group whose relatives or friends are facing such punishments. If you ask from the person who has lost a love one at the hands of these criminals, he would never advocate anything less than a death penalty for the guilty one. And it is their opinion that should hold more weightage, the one who has been wronged has the final say in deciding to punish the wrong doer, not the wrong doer himself. If the argument is that we should think humanely when dealing with these criminals, then my question is simple in this regard; is the killing of another person humane? If it is not, and I am sure you would agree that it is not, then the criminals who are guilty for murder have no right to ask for a humane punishment themselves. The supporters of utilitarianism will probably retaliate to this by asking of the specific usefulness of this particular act, i.e. putting a murderer to death. The utilitarian approach holds that all actions should be judged of their usefulness by looking at their consequences. The best action, according to this philosophy, is the one that maximizes the overall happiness. So, they hold the argument that life imprisonment isolates the bad people from the society forever, which should result in the satisfaction of all, the wronged and the wrong doers and the society in large. Then why opt for such a brutal punishment as the death penalty? But do we really know the consequences of any of our action? The repercussions and reverberations of a single action can span decades or even centuries. For me, the threat of an immediate punishment of death is the biggest deterrence humanity has against humans who have forgotten humanity! The fear of this penalty might be stopping many people from taking someone’s life. Because humans instinctively fear all fears, and giving an exemplary punishment to someone instills that fears in the hearts of like-minded people (Rosen, 2003). I am advocating capital punishment only for the people who play any part in the wrongful killing of another human being. Countries that use death penalty for other crimes like drug related etc. should re-analyze their punishments in light of the contemporary deontology philosophy. This philosophy holds out that if harm to a few can save the majority, then it is justified for the greater good, if that harm is an aspect of the greater good itself. Therefore, if by executing someone like Osama bin Laden can remove the unease of a vast majority of the people, and can save lives, than it sure is justified. But drugs and adultery are acts that do not threaten to take someone’s life, so, the countries where death is given in punishment to even these crimes; they should rethink the logic behind it and abolish it (Kamm, 2007). Now we come to the view of the ethical egoists. This philosophy and its adherents say that people ought to act in their own self-interest. This means that if a person commits some action that might even merit capital punishment, then he must have done it out of his interest. This argument is simply bizarre and cannot be applied in a world where drug mafia, rapists, murderers, frauds and extortionists exist alongside the good lot. Surely there is nothing wrong about thinking of one’s own good, we are not all born to become Mother Teresa or Abdus Sattar Edhi. But sadly, there is nothing ethical about egoism either. And laws are based on ethics of right and wrong, they are formulated to keep the peace of a society. So, very rightfully, law is blind just as it should be. The egoists are thinking just of the criminals here. Not of the society as a whole. I will not sleep soundly at night if I knew that the criminal minded people out there had no fear, because they knew they could plead for mercy on humanitarian grounds for something as serious as a murder (Rachels, 2008). Some people are of the view that capital punishment should be abolished because it encourages a culture of violence. But these very people change their views when met with a particularly serious serial killer or child murderer or a terrorist. To my possibly flawed logic, as I am no authority over the subject, the fact that killers have no particularly fearful punishment seems more of an encouragement of a culture of violence then giving them what they deserve. The law has to look into the particulars of every case, murder could be in self-defense or it could have been carried out by a mentally handicapped person, these exceptions need to be dealt with separately ofcoarse. Following deontology philosophy does not mean that we should blindly apply a rule on all just because of the moral merit of the rule. Every case should be dealt individually on its own merit. As J.R.R. Tolkien said that we should not be too hasty in giving out death in judgment, as many that die deserve life and many that live deserve death. Decisions should be taken in light of proper and concrete evidence to cancel out all possibility of a wrong decision. To conclude, I would like to restate my belief that death penalty is a very effective deterrence for criminals, and its existence is necessary to maintain peace and order in the society, but the handing out of this punishment should only be carried for murder related crimes and that too after concrete evidence has been given. 2. Compare Kantian ethics with the ethics of utilitarianism, pointing out both similarities and differences. Answer: The ethics of Kant and Utilitarianism are similar in some ways, but quite distinct in most. The differences in both these philosophies lie in their basic approaches to the science and art of ethics, with Kant using different terminologies in relation to Bentham and Mill. The Kantian ethics are absolutist and deontological in their approach, while the Utilitarianism ethics are purely situational and consequential in their philosophy when dealing with an ethical dilemma. Therefore, the differences of both these theories stand out more prominently, with both analyzing ethics from opposite ends of the spectrum of philosophy, with Kant basing his ethics on the reasoning of A priori and Mill and Bentham basing their Utilitarian ethics on the logic of A posteriori. If we apply the principles of Kantian and Utilitarianism ethics on specific examples, the underlying theoretical differences become even more distinct and clear. The Kantian ethics aim at finding the categorical imperative that can become a universal principle upon which all ethical judgments would be based. The imperative Kant wanted could surely not be hypothetical or based on preference. On the other hand, the ethics in Utilitarianism are based on the preference of the majority. We can apply the both the theories on a situation where a woman becomes pregnant after being sexually molested and she now wants to decide whether or not she should go for an abortion, and we would be able to see the distinctions, through application, between the ethics of Mill and Bentham and the ethics of Kant. If the woman applies the Kantian ethics, the only permissible situation for her to have the baby aborted would be the case where it is the right thing to do, where she would become a categorical imperative for all the people to follow. Kantian ethics would not allow the woman to have an abortion because she is unsure of how to arrange the money for the child brought up or any other hypothetical reason like that. So, a woman in such a situation is more likely not to have an abortion, if basing her decision on Kantian ethics, as the scenario that permits the abortion is highly unlikely to happen, and thinking on rational terms, she might even abandon Kant’s theory. On the other hand, Utilitarianism is entirely based on the judgments that are hypothetical, because the ethical decisions in this philosophy are based on the preference of many and on the comparison of pleasure and pain. These are the only contributing factors on taking an ethical decision in Utilitarianism. Therefore, if the woman in the case decides on the basis of Utilitarianism ethics, she would have to know if abortion would give her more ultimate pleasure and happiness or would deciding to do otherwise. This would be way too consequential and situationist for the Kantian ethics to accept. Another major difference between Kantian ethics and Utilitarianism ethics is the way both perceive human nature. The difference is magnified by their respective scholar’s perception of the things humans will avoid instinctively. Bentham’s analysis said that pleasure can be identified with good and pain can be identified with evil. He said that people would do everything possible to avoid pain for themselves and the pain that would be inflicted on others. Bentham classified that the pain could be in context of physical, religious, moral and political. While in the Kantian ethics, the issue of any kind of pain does not play any part. Kantian ethics state that the right course of action is the one that would result in the glorification of God, and it should be regardless of the cost to one’s own self or to those around you (Baron, 1999). This is where the matter of duty arises for Kant. He believes that a person has to be selfless sometimes to take on the action that is correct morally. People argued that according to the principles of Utilitarianism, acts such as gang rape could even be justified. To amend this loophole, Utilitarianism ethics introduced the principle that that all sorts of harm have to be avoided in the Utilitarianism ethics, and where harm is unavoidable it has to atleast minimized. The principle was introduced by Mill. Utilitarianism ethics possess a hypothetical nature which is further presented by the Hedonic calculus with the seven basic principles of the theory that determine the correct action. These basic elements are duration, intensity, certainty, propinquity or remoteness, purity or not followed by pain, fecundity or chance of there being further pleasures and extent. Meanwhile, Kantian ethics have quite a lesser number of moral guidelines. To be straightforward, Kantian ethics have just one basic guideline but it is way stricter, i.e. to decide on actions that can become universal laws. The closest similarity that Utilitarianism could devise to this Kantian rule was ‘Rule Utilitarianism’, which is more closely associated with Mill. This theory was a supplement to the original theory of Utilitarianism, and the idea of working for the greatest good for the greatest number was amended a little. The new principle stated that “actions should be performed which are guided by rules which, when followed by everyone, would result in the greatest happiness” (Lyons, 1965). This idea holds a little similarity with Kantian ethics idea of categorical imperative. Though, an argument can be made on which is more feasible. Both these theories have some more subtle similarities. Both these philosophies have been devised to present human kind with frameworks upon which decisions can be made and justified. Both the Kantian ethics and the Utilitarianism ethics aim at giving out principles that we can apply on all situations and actions. One big similarity between these theories is the fact that they are teleological, they both adhere to the fact that final causes exist in nature. It means that the patterns of human actions and their purposes are also inherently present in the nature around us. This is where both these theories unite a little. To sum it all up, Kantian ethics and Utilitarianism ethics have their own distinct approaches to the philosophy of ethics and have their own unique perceptions of human nature and the priorities of people when faced with a situation where they have to take an ethical decision. The theories that result out of these analyses hold a few similarities in purpose but hold out major differences in function and application. Utilitarianism is a system of ethics that supports the principle of the greatest useful goodness for the greatest number of people and advocates it to be the guiding principle when making ethical decisions. While on the other side, Kantian philosophy suggests that the morally right action is an absolute and unconditional condition that allows no concessions and is both required and justified as an end in itself and not as a means to some other end. References Baron, M. (1999). Kantian Ethics Almost Without Apology. Cornell University Press. Kamm, F. M. (2007). Intricate Ethics: Rights, Responsibilities, and Permissible Harm. New York: Oxford University Press. Lyons, D. ( 1965). Forms and Limits of Utilitarianism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rachels, J. (2008). "Ethical Egoism." In Reason & Responsibility: Readings in Some Basic Problems of Philosophy. In J. F. Shafer-Landau. California: Thomson Wadsworth. Rosen, F. (2003). Classical Utilitarianism from Hume to Mill. Routledge. Read More