Today, the death penalty is an issue that has raised many questions in regards to its morality. Many people believe that the death penalty is immoral for a number of factors, some of which being the execution of innocents, the arbitrary application of the death penalty, and the racial and economic discrimination with the system. Many others believe that the death penalty is moral, for it gives people what they deserve, the criminals were fully aware of the consequences that may fall upon them, and that justice is being served for the victims and families of the victims still suffering from the actions of the criminal.
In this paper I will argue that from a Deontological standpoint, the death penalty is morally just. To do this, I will first describe the basics of the theory of Deontology in general, so that you, the reader, can begin to understand some of the fundamental beliefs that Kant, the father of Deontology, first expressed, which have developed into what we know as Deontology today. Then, I will apply the theory to the death penalty and discuss retributivism to explore and apply some core Deontological believes onto a major moral issue today.
I will then consider objections that come up in regards to Kant’s view on the death penalty and retributivism and respond to them from a Deontological viewpoint, explaining further why this viewpoint is valid. Lastly, I will summarize what I’ve presented in a clear and concise format so that you may begin to fully take in all the information presented and come up with a viewpoint of your own. ‘Deontology’ means ‘the study of duty/obligation,’ and it is a normative theory that claims there are rules we can come to know using reason alone.
Deontology prizes free will (autonomy) and the rational capacities that go with it, as the fundamentally important concepts of morality. ” Actions are only moral if they are undertaken for the sake of morality alone and no other ulterior motives. For example, if telling the truth is an act considered to be moral and a little boy has the option to either lie or tell the truth about why he did not complete his homework, there are a few different results that can come from his decision. If he lies, it is an immoral act because the action of lying is immoral.
If he tells the truth because he knows telling the truth is the right thing to do, then his action is moral. If he tells the truth because he knows that he will receive $10 for doing so, his action is immoral because he has ulterior motives other than the motive to further morality. “Further, it is an approach to ethics that focuses on the rightness or wrongness of actions themselves, as opposed to the rightness or wrongness of the consequences of those actions, in which Consequentialism basis its principles, or to the character and habits of the actors, in which Virtue Ethics bases its principles. (philosophybasics. com)
Thus, to a Deontologist, whether something is moral or immoral depends on whether the action that was taken in the situation is moral or immoral in itself. Consequences of the act are not taken into consideration, they have zero moral value and do not impact an action at all; just the action alone does. For example, take stealing. According to Deontology, stealing is always wrong because it does not pass Kant’s famous categorical imperative. If a man were to steal a loaf of bread because he was hungry, that action would be immoral.
Even if there are convincing reasons as to why the man needs the loaf of bread, such as his poverty and thus inability to pay, or his intense hunger from his lack of food over the past few days, his action would still be immoral because the action of stealing is always wrong. As mentioned above, the Categorical Imperative is what is used to determine the morality of actions when in question. “Immanuel Kant defined an imperative as any proposition that declares a certain action (or inaction) to be a necessary.
A categorical imperative would denote an absolute, unconditional requirement that exerts its authority in all circumstances, both required and justified as an end in itself. ” (philosophybasics. com). The Categorical Imperative has two formulations: (1) Always act in a way that you would will the entire word to act. Imagine that your action becomes a maxim of universal law. (2) Never treat other rational beings as mere means to our own purposes, but always at ends in themselves.
With the first formulation, an action must be taken, imagined that that action became a moral law, and tested to see whether the act destroys what was being tested in the first place. If it does, then it does not pass the first formulation of the Categorical Imperative and the act is thus immoral. With the second formulation, an action must be taken and analyzed to determine if any other person is being used as a means to an end. If they are, the action does not pass the second formulation of the Categorical Imperative and is thus immoral.
Treating other rational beings as means contradicts the fact that all rational beings are ends in themselves. If this is so, then the principle could not be a universal law, violating the first formulation of the Categorical Imperative. When people violate the categorical imperative, they apply a different standard to their own behavior that they would desire for everyone else – creating a contradiction that violates the principles of reason. An example of testing the Categorical Imperative follows: The action being tested is, “Kill people who insult you.
A person trying to decide if this action is moral or not must first put it into a universal context. Because people aren’t perfect and sometimes say things they regret, or even because people interpret things in different ways, a lot of people would be killing each other, often, when someone insulted them. If everyone were killing each other, then eventually there would not be any more people, thus destroying the very thing we were trying to test. Therefore, this action would not pass the first formulation and would be considered immoral.
Further, killing another person for one’s own self-interest and satisfaction would 100% be using that person as a means to an end. It would be destroying their hopes, dreams, and taking away their free will. Thus, this action would not pass the second formulation either, and would further be considered immoral. Kant believes that these things are true because they are a natural use of our rationality and autonomy – the only things that truly makes humanity what it is and what separates us from all other things.
Our will, through our own choosing, is good when it operates from reason and duty alone. In this way, the Categorical Imperative guides us to being truly moral. Further, freedom is the ability to be motivated by your own choices, and to be able to deliberate and act on reason. So why be moral? Because it is a pure extension of our autonomy – and there is nothing greater than freedom. In his book Metaphysics of Morals, Kant expresses that neither state, nor society can exist without laws.
Kant’s view on crime and punishment is as follows: “If there is no law, there is no society and no state. Therefore enforcement of the of the law, which is the society’s foundation, means protection of the society and the state. Thus, any person violating the law loses the right to be a society member and consequently must be deemed guilty and punished. ” (Avaliani) Kant goes on in his book to say that if a violation or a crime is unpunished, then the law would be considered weak, which further suggests that society itself is weak.
He believes that “the only goal is inflicting a deserved punishment upon a guilty person, and a person cannot be punished for sake of the society’s benefit. ” (Avaliani) If this was so, it would be using the person as a means to benefit society, or a means to an end, which violates the second formulation of the Categorical Imperative, and would therefore make the act immoral. Kant argued for lex talionis, an “eye for an eye,” in which the punishment should commensurate in severity, but not necessarily be of the same sort.
