Kant's Views on Capital Punishment
This is an excerpt from the paper...
To determine if Immanuel Kant's purely retributive view of capital punishment is consistent with his view of regarding persons as ends in themselves, a discussion of Kant's moral philosophy must be provided. Moral law is formulated by Kant as based upon the "categorical imperative" (Solomon and Higgins 212). This represents a singular command that applies across the entire range of human behavior. The categorical imperative, according to the best-known formulation, asserts that "one should only act on a maxim that one can will to be universal law" (Solomon and Higgins 212). The moral law, then, is summarized as follows: One always ought to act so as to treat humanity, in oneself and another, as an end in itself, and not as a mere means. In this sense, capital punishment would seem to use an individual as some form of means for achieving the end of exacting justice. Despite this view, Kant believes in an eye-for-an-eye type of morality with respect to use of capital punishment. He argues that when the crime is murder, capital punishment is the only retribution proportional to the severity of the crime. Within his argument is the belief that human beings have a right to retaliation when harmed by others. This analysis will offer a discussion of Kant's moral philosophy and his views on capital punishment. The views of Albert Camus, a staunch opponent of capital punishment, will also be offered. A conclusion will assess whether Kant's views on the mora
. . .
form of punishment considered "cruel and unusual" in the 8th Amendment. In this sense, then, Kant's argument for capital punishment appears to promote the use of an individual as an instrument or means to provide retribution as the end. Kant argues that the murderer had the option to act differently at the time he or she acted immorally and committed murder.
Kant's argument for retribution also encompasses the idea of retaliation or an eye-for-an-eye type of morality. Clearly, the idea that murder is a damnable act stems from Biblical times when it was written into the Old Testament as a violation of God's Ten Commandments. Kant maintains to be just, punishment must be equal to the crime or wrong committed. Kant would argue that the murderer had the choice to act differently when faced with the act of murder. While we might argue that such behavior stemmed from diminished reason, this does not absolve the murderer of responsibility for his act. Kant did not believe that humans were obligated to accept mistreatment at the hands of others. As Stairs (1) notes, "When we come to the particular case of capital punishment, we see that Kant thinks it is both permissible and obligatory in the case of murder. The only th
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Camus Camus, Solomon Higgins, Instead Kant, Kant Camus, People God, Commandments Kant, Albert Camus, God Ethical, capital punishment, Immanuel Kant's, Despite Kant's, views capital punishment, views capital, kant's argument, stairs 1, kant's moral, moral commonwealth, kant believes, kant maintains, kant argues, people god, kant's moral philosophy, argument capital punishment, kant's argument capital, solomon higgins 212,
Approximate Word count = 2592
Approximate Pages = 10 (250 words per page)
More Essays on Kant Views on Capital Punishment
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
