Punishment and the death penalty is one of many ethical debates that continue to be widespread throughout the United States. What justifies the death penalty and is it ethically correct to impose such punishment? What constitutes punishment and how does one effectively enforce punishment? In Ethics: Theory and Contemporary issues, MacKinnon introduces to the facts of legal punishment and the death penalty and how to apply this contemporary issue to 4 ethical theories. Legal punishment is defined as some pain or penalty warranted by law, inflicted on a person, for the commission of a crime or misdemeanor, or for the omission of the performance of an act required by law, by the judgment and command of some lawful court. It is designed to
…show more content…
Knowing that moral laws are prescriptive laws and they tell us how we ought to behave, natural law is the moral law written into nature itself. It is a theory of ethics that holds that there are moral laws found in nature and discernable by the use of reason. It is important to note that natural laws are not to be confused with the laws of nature (MacKinnon, 2015). In natural law tradition, to go against the natural law is to act against the universal human good or to diminish authentic human existence. Good is defined as that which contributes to human fulfillment. Life is considered the fundamental good because all other goods or human rights depend on its protection. Thus, human life can be ethically taken only when another human life or lives are mortally threatened. The issue in the natural law tradition is whether or not those who have committed capital crimes and are now in prison present enough of a threat to the lives of others. (Himma, n.d.) Given the fact that natural law theory argues that we ought to find ways to live well together, that it is supposed to be higher than the laws of any society and that since all humans have the natural right to life, then natural law would generally argue a different means of punishment as an alternative to execution (MacKinnon, …show more content…
Utilitarian theory holds that a consequence should involve the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number of people. To make a moral decision, the outcome of the consequences have to be taken into consideration. When considering the punishment of a crime, a utilitarian would use a deterrence method in justification of the punishment. Since the greatest amount of happiness is what should be considered in making ethical decision, they would want to use the punishment to prevent other crimes of such nature in the future. A utilitarian would accept capital punishment only if the number of people benefitting from the death of a criminal outweighs those who are not benefiting from the death. Capital punishment can reduce crime rates by deterring possible criminals from attempting the crime. The threat of being killed for committing a crime may stop someone from committing the crime, ultimately helping the greater number of people. In addition, executing a criminal will disallow the criminal who committed the crime to commit a crime again. This too helps the most possible number of people (Murtagh,
Knowing that moral laws are prescriptive laws and they tell us how we ought to behave, natural law is the moral law written into nature itself. It is a theory of ethics that holds that there are moral laws found in nature and discernable by the use of reason. It is important to note that natural laws are not to be confused with the laws of nature (MacKinnon, 2015). In natural law tradition, to go against the natural law is to act against the universal human good or to diminish authentic human existence. Good is defined as that which contributes to human fulfillment. Life is considered the fundamental good because all other goods or human rights depend on its protection. Thus, human life can be ethically taken only when another human life or lives are mortally threatened. The issue in the natural law tradition is whether or not those who have committed capital crimes and are now in prison present enough of a threat to the lives of others. (Himma, n.d.) Given the fact that natural law theory argues that we ought to find ways to live well together, that it is supposed to be higher than the laws of any society and that since all humans have the natural right to life, then natural law would generally argue a different means of punishment as an alternative to execution (MacKinnon, …show more content…
Utilitarian theory holds that a consequence should involve the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number of people. To make a moral decision, the outcome of the consequences have to be taken into consideration. When considering the punishment of a crime, a utilitarian would use a deterrence method in justification of the punishment. Since the greatest amount of happiness is what should be considered in making ethical decision, they would want to use the punishment to prevent other crimes of such nature in the future. A utilitarian would accept capital punishment only if the number of people benefitting from the death of a criminal outweighs those who are not benefiting from the death. Capital punishment can reduce crime rates by deterring possible criminals from attempting the crime. The threat of being killed for committing a crime may stop someone from committing the crime, ultimately helping the greater number of people. In addition, executing a criminal will disallow the criminal who committed the crime to commit a crime again. This too helps the most possible number of people (Murtagh,