The Role of Morality - Essay Example

Response to Part One Morality is quite complex a phenomenon that not even science has been able to test or explain it. Scientific instruments cannot do the measurement of moral rightness or wrongness. The determination of whether actions are morally right or wrong, therefore, is a question of reasonableness (Borg et al. 805). People hold certain beliefs that guide then as to the kind of actions that are morally wright and wrong. However, the problem arises when one encounters a situation of moral choice that does not fall within the purview of his or her beliefs as to what is morally right or wrong. Moral philosophy is largely concerned with what makes actions right or wrong but not the kind of actions that are right or wrong. Utilitarianism is a moral philosophy in which actions are good if they bring the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people. Utilitarianism is a strain of consequentialism as it is hinged on the premise that the results or consequences of actions determine whether they are morally right or wrong. Whatever action is evaluated through utilitarianism should deliver the best results for it to stand the test of moral rightness (Koenings et al. 708). Utilitarianism uses the term “maximizes utility” to describe an action that produces the greatest amount of good. For one to understand what maximizes utility and, therefore, morally right, three aspects must be taken into account. Firstly, one should determine the good and bad things. Secondly, one should understand whose good is to be maximized. Thirdly, one should determine whether actions are right or wrong based on results or consequences. The only good thing, according to utilitarians, is pleasure or happiness. Utilitarians admit that many other things are good, including food, freedom, and friends. However, these other good things are deemed instrumental goods, which are valuable solely due to the roles they play in producing happiness or pleasure. On the contrary, pleasure and happiness are intrinsic goods to mean that they are inherently good without producing any further good (Borg et al. 810). In the same way, the lack of friends and food is intrinsically bad due to the associated pain, suffering, and unhappiness all of which are intrinsically bad. Pain and unhappiness are intrinsically bad because no further bad thing arises therefrom. Individual self-interest guided what is morally right or wrong. Individuals consider their personal utility when deciding what is good (Bartels 153). When one shops for ice cream, he or she considers the favorite flavor in making the choice of ice cream. The flavor is one that will give the most pleasure. On the other hand, group interest also guides what is morally good or bad. One will have to consider how the family, friends, or the country will be affected in making certain moral choices (154). The benefits and losses that the group will incur due to the action are important factors in making a moral choice. The well-being of a group is the total of the members’ interests. For instance, when one is buying ice cream for a party and two flavors – chocolate and vanilla – are available, one will have to consider which flavor is preferred by the majority of people to attend the party. The interest of everyone should be counted equally without bias. When a government choses policy, for instance, equal consideration should be given to the well-being of all citizens. Although utilitarianism at times focuses on an individual or group’s interests, equal consideration of interests should be taken into account. In calculating the utility of actions, the impartial perspective should be the guide. Impartiality should favor all those people one cares about, including friends, family, and the community. This impartiality is at the core of utilitarian morality (Bartels 155). Immanuel Kant’s ethical theory assesses morally right or wrong actions using he will or intention of the person so acting. The theory is deemed deontological as it holds that actions cannot be assessed as morally right or wrong based on their consequences but the will or the actor. Kant’s actions, therefore, are based on duty and not consequences. Kant’s theory has three pillars: maxims, willing, and categorical imperativeness (Borg et al. 816). Maxim is the general principle that explains the action and the circumstances under which the action is done. Willing involves the consistency with which a person does a particular action. Categorical imperativeness demands that one must act in a manner that wills the maxim behind the action. Essentially, the maxim should be applicable in all situations and for all people. Kant also highlighted in his theory the difference between perfect and imperfect duties. The former are duties to be performed by one always in a given situation. The latter are duties one performs only when the situation presents itself. Kant’s theory contrasts with utilitarianism in the manner in which rules are applicable. Kant values universality of laws and maxims in guiding people’s actions. The adoption of a maxim implies the readiness to act in the prescribed way whenever a situation requiring the application of the maxim arises. In addition, maxims are applied consistently hence are more valuable universally. For instance, when Kant argues that telling a lie is an imperfect duty, it becomes universal for people not to tell lies. On the contrary, utilitarianism does not present a universal set of rules for moral choices. Utilitarianism judges situations individually. It becomes lengthy and time-consuming to weigh every situation for moral rightness or wrongness. The difficulty gets worse in not knowing whether a choice will bring the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Kantianism is a better account of ethics than utilitarianism although the latter seems plausible from the outset. Utilitarianism maximizes utility in that an action is morally right if its consequences bring more happiness to the greatest number of people. The right moral conduct, according to utilitarianism, is based solely on the consequences of the action (James 55). In utilitarianism, one must first tally the consequences of the action based on goodness or badness. The next step is the determination of which consequences outweigh the other between the good ones and the bad ones. Where the good consequences outweigh the bad consequences, the action is deemed morally right. On the other hand, if the bad consequences outweigh the good consequences, the action is deemed morally wrong. Based on these considerations, utilitarianism seems more subjective hence cannot be applied universally as Kantianism would. Additionally, a person’s determination of what action brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number may not be the same as another person’s assessment of the same. Kantianism is a consistent moral theory with universal application. Even in cases where an action’s consequences are bad, the person is obliged to act because he or she has a duty to act in that way. Response to Part Two Yes. I agree that the death penalty must deter, no matter what statistics say because almost everybody would prefer life in prison to execution. In most societies, punishment has always served to discourage potential criminals from committing unlawful actions. The society is highly interested in keeping its members alive and, therefore preventing murder. This explains why murder is a capital offence in most jurisdictions. To prevent murder cases, the strongest form of punishment is necessary. The death penalty was formulated on this premise. When murderers are sentenced to death with ultimate execution as their fate, would-be murderers are instilled with fear and have to give a second thought to their actions that would take away another person’s life. A potential murderer fears that he or she would be killed upon taking away someone else’s life. Criminologists have carried out surveys to determine whether the execution of murderers influenced the rate of murders in the society (Levitt 163). However, the results have been inconclusive in most cases. One would think on the face of it that the number of murders would decline following executions of murderers or imposition of the death penalty. Isaac Ehrlich used a new kind of analysis in 1973 in which he found out that the deterrence to execution rate stood at 1:7. Precisely, for every one murderer executed, seven lives were saved in the society because potential murderers were deterred from taking away other people’s lives (170). A number of follow-up studies have confirmed Ehrlich’s position regarding the deterrent effect of the death penalty. The inconclusiveness and inconsistencies of certain studies regarding the deterrent effect of the death penalty can only be attributed to the fact that executions usually take long. A murderer could be convicted and executed ten years later or so. In addition, the inconclusiveness or inconsistency in these studies can be explained in terms of the frequency within which the death penalty is used. Courts shy away from the penalty due to moral considerations. A judge’s conviction may prevent him or her from passing the death sentence (Manski & Pepper 127). If executions were carried out as swift as possible immediately after the conviction, the rates of deterrence would be higher than the values depicted by Ehrlich’s study. Although some jurisdictions without the death penalty have reportedly had higher rates of deterrence than jurisdictions with the death penalty (Levitt 170), it cannot be argued conclusively that the death penalty does not deter or has failed to do so. Taken oppositely, states that have higher incidences of murder would be at a dangerous position if they did not have the death penalty. Essentially, murderers would be encouraged more to commit murder due to the gap in the law. This proves that the death penalty is still a deterrent factor contrary to what other people might argue. Some studies have stressed on the deterrent effect of the death penalty. Statistical demonstrations have been deemed inconclusive as far as the deterrent effect of the death penalty is concerned. However, a section of scholars have held a common view that the capital punishment (that is, the death penalty) has a higher deterrent effect compared to other punishments on the sole argument that people fear death so much that they can accept any other thing such as spending their entire lives in prison (Manski & Pepper 126). When death is provided for in the law and imposed by the court, it becomes more painful than death occurring naturally or by accident. It pains to know that death is in store because the certificate to its implementation has been issued. What inflicts greater fear on a person is likely to deter that person the most. Consequently, legally imposed death is deterrent to a greater degree. The threat of death has a strong deterrent effect on would-be murderers and those who would otherwise not be deterred had the death penalty not been in place. On a similar note, the death penalty is the only way prisoners serving a life sentence can be deterred from killing the prison guards to facilitate their escape. Offenders about to be arrested are also tempted to kill the police officers carrying out the arrests. The death penalty deters such killings thereby facilitating cooperation with police officers. Arguably, nothing else can deter such killings of law enforcement officers other than the death penalty. A longer sentence would not serve that purpose (Manski & Pepper 140). There is the need for law enforcement officers to be protected in their service to the public. Their lives should not be put at risk. Murderers would kill the arresting officers if that would facilitate their escape. After all, the murderer knows that the penalty in store is not the death penalty. Finally, the death penalty is has some form of finality in it. Precisely, the penalty puts an end to the murderer thereby preventing future attacks on other people. The murderer is incapacitated for lack of a better word. In the same way, a robber locked in prison cannot find his or her way back to the streets to commit robbery. Some offenders are vicious in the sense that even upon release, they still have the urge to commit the same offense for which they were previously convicted. The only way to break this vicious cycle is to incapacitate the murderer through execution. Therefore, the death penalty plays a major role in preventing future crime regardless of whether it is used as deterrent measure of a means of permanent incapacitation. To solve the inconsistencies and inconclusiveness of statistics obtained from recent studies, the manner in which the death penalty is implemented should be changed. Firstly, prisoners sentenced to death should not be allowed to live for long in the prisons. The executions should take place immediately or after a reasonable time. Secondly, executions should be made public so that the society knows about them. In most cases, executions are conducted in secrecy even for murderers conducted heinous killings that caused greater public outrage. The society cannot be deterred by what they do not know. The fear increases when people hear of stories about executed persons. In addition, courts should not shy away from pronouncing the death penalty. The rate at which life imprisonment is overtaking the death penalty is alarming. Capital crimes such as murder will only increase if the death penalty is ignored. Although human rights issues have interfered with traditional sentencing, the greatest happiness for the greatest number should have its way. Most people in the society do are not happy wit capital crimes. Executions, therefore, bring happiness to the greatest number as it helps deter potential murderers in the society (James 100). Some thought should also be given to presidential pardon. It worsens the situation by diluting the deterrent effect of the death penalty. Works Cited Bartels, Daniel M. and Pizarro, David A. “The mismeasure of morals: Antisocial personality traits predict utilitarian responses to moral dilemmas.” Cognition, 121.1 (2011): 154-161 Borg, Jana, Hyne, Catherine, Horn, John Van, Grafton, Scott and Armstrong, Walter. “Consequences, Action, and Intention as Factors in Moral Judgments: An fMRI Investigation.” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18.5 (2006): 803-817 James, Rachels. The Elements of Moral Philosophy Koenings, Michaels, Kruepke, Michael, Zeir, Joshua and Newman Joseph P. “Utilitarian moral judgment in psychopathy.” Social, Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7.6 (2012): 708-714 Levitt, Steven D. “Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 1990s: Four Factors That Explain the Decline and Six That Do Not.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 18.1 (2004): 163-190 Manski, Charles F. and Pepper, John V. “Deterrence and the Death Penalty: Partial Identification Analysis Using Repeated Cross Sections.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 29.1 (2013): 123-141 Read More