I will argue for the view in support of Stephan Nathanson’s statement. There are 2 reasons I support Nathanson’s statement of “Neither equality retributivism nor proportional retributivism can justify the death penalty” (Timmons “Disputed Moral Issues”, page 541-544). Firstly, I believe that equality retributivism cannot be utilized as a means for justifying the death penalty because it is immoral to take another persons life. Second of all, proportional retributivism fails to justify the death penalty because it fails to address how criminals should be punished by being too vague to actually apply. The strongest objection to Nathanson’s statement would be that criminals forfeit all their rights. However, I believe that this objection fails to address the humanity a criminal still has as a person of earth.
My first reason in support of Nathanson’s argument is that I believe that equality retributivism cannot be utilized as a means for justifying the death penalty because it is immoral to take another persons life. Because punishments and crimes are matched evenly, I find that equality retributivism is just another form of Hammurabi’s code. This is where punishments are dealt with based on an “eye for an eye” basis and so …show more content…
He states that it “does not provide a measure of moral desert” and that “does not determine the appropriate level of punishment”(Timmons “Disputed Moral Issues”, page 542). This “moral desert” that Nathanson argues over is what people deserve based on their own individual actions. So he does agree that there does need to be a punishment or some sort of consequence that should be incurred based upon the criminal act committed but death is not appropriate because I have said it is no longer relevant and immoral. This plays into Nathansons second condition in which it becomes clear that equality retributivism is too vague to clarify an actual
My first reason in support of Nathanson’s argument is that I believe that equality retributivism cannot be utilized as a means for justifying the death penalty because it is immoral to take another persons life. Because punishments and crimes are matched evenly, I find that equality retributivism is just another form of Hammurabi’s code. This is where punishments are dealt with based on an “eye for an eye” basis and so …show more content…
He states that it “does not provide a measure of moral desert” and that “does not determine the appropriate level of punishment”(Timmons “Disputed Moral Issues”, page 542). This “moral desert” that Nathanson argues over is what people deserve based on their own individual actions. So he does agree that there does need to be a punishment or some sort of consequence that should be incurred based upon the criminal act committed but death is not appropriate because I have said it is no longer relevant and immoral. This plays into Nathansons second condition in which it becomes clear that equality retributivism is too vague to clarify an actual