Is Capital Punishment Morally Justifiable? Is it admissible and morally justifiable to allow the court system the right to slay these criminals on death row via capital punishment? Capital punishment has been around since the dawn of time. From biblical stoning two-thousand years ago to the hanging of murderers 150 years ago, there have been many advances in capital punishment. There have been many forms of punishment to arise since hanging in the 1800’s. From lethal injection, electrocution, to the gas chamber, these ways of killing a criminal should be seen as valid. Even though capital punishment is the deliberate taking of a criminal's life and they have families just like everyone else, it remains relevant to society because otherwise
…show more content…
According to deontology, Immanuel Kant would say that because someone committed a crime such as murder or rape that it is wrong whether the murder was out of self defense or not. In his view the society should follow rules or laws that are in place. If capital punishment is a law that is in place to keep the society safe from these criminals then it is hereby seen as morally justifiable. An example of this would be that of William Kemmler, he chose to commit a heinous act that would in turn have bad consequences, according to the law. Because of his choice to follow through with it would then be considered morally unjustifiable. Kant’s theory would see the punishment received as karma in a way, because he did not follow the rules of not committing …show more content…
This theory is completely different from utilitarianism. Rather than what brings the greatest amount of happiness to the majority of people, ethical egoism would state that it is in the person's own self interest to do what is the best for themselves. This would in-turn objectify against capital punishment as being morally justifiable. If a person so chose to kill their lover much like William Kemmler than it should be seen as a personal choice to do so that had a good justification. It would propose that Kemmler had motivation to pursue this act. If this is the case then capital punishment should be
According to deontology, Immanuel Kant would say that because someone committed a crime such as murder or rape that it is wrong whether the murder was out of self defense or not. In his view the society should follow rules or laws that are in place. If capital punishment is a law that is in place to keep the society safe from these criminals then it is hereby seen as morally justifiable. An example of this would be that of William Kemmler, he chose to commit a heinous act that would in turn have bad consequences, according to the law. Because of his choice to follow through with it would then be considered morally unjustifiable. Kant’s theory would see the punishment received as karma in a way, because he did not follow the rules of not committing …show more content…
This theory is completely different from utilitarianism. Rather than what brings the greatest amount of happiness to the majority of people, ethical egoism would state that it is in the person's own self interest to do what is the best for themselves. This would in-turn objectify against capital punishment as being morally justifiable. If a person so chose to kill their lover much like William Kemmler than it should be seen as a personal choice to do so that had a good justification. It would propose that Kemmler had motivation to pursue this act. If this is the case then capital punishment should be