n Kant's moral philosophy, reason and morality are inextricably connected. Kant argues that rational human beings have choices and are not passive pawns of natural forces. He argued we are able to "regulate" our behavior in accordance with the law our "reason" constructs for us - the "moral law" (Solomon and Higgins 211). We demonstrate our freedom when we act in accordance with this law and respect within others their essential humanity or dignity. In other words, a murderer could choose a different action if he or she were to act with reason and on freedom of will.
Kant's views on capital punishment are purely retributive, in that he views capital punishment as a just form of retribution in certain cases. Kant argues it is flat out wrong to punish people for "utilitarian reasons," like deterrence of crime or protection of society (Stairs 1). Instead, Kant maintained that punishment must always be a reflection of guilt of the individual being punished. As Stairs (1) explains, "Kant goes further in that not only is guilt a necessary condition for punishment, but the guilty must be punished or else justice and equality, the only proper foundations for the law, will not be served." Where punishment is concerned, the condition of equality is one that must be served, which is why Kant believes capital punishment is the only form of punishment that is equal to killing another human being.
To see why Kant views capital punishment as valid for some crimes, we must look at his categorical imperative. If everyone adopted the universal maxim or principle that murder was right, then everyone would risk being murdered. This principle makes murderers wrong when they kill, and in Kant's view those who abstain from exacting a punishment that is equal to murder are culpable of supporting a wrong maxim. We see this in Kant's argument that if a society were to be dissolved, its last act should be to kill the last murder...