Stephen Nathanson: The Debolism Of Abolishing The Death Penalty

In this chapter Stephen Nathanson discusses the symbolism of abolishing the death penalty, and claims that we express a respect for each person’s rights by refraining from depriving a murder of someone’s life. The death penalty has been an argument for decades now and still discussed if someone actually does deserve the death penalty. Stephen explains his view towards this claim, and identifies how this moral problem could be resolved. There are ways you could solve this problem but resolving claims in a certain way always have its’s cons as well. In my opinion a Subjectivism system could resolve the dilemma our society is having with the death penalty.
Stephen questions the moral concern in a particular matter, he argues against classic retributivist …show more content…
The system doesn’t require treating those guilty of barbaric crimes barbarically. Proportionality principle can play a role in our thinking about punishments; again it doesn’t help with death penalty advocates. Out of all these main beliefs they all fail to reveal a distinguished supporting system with the death penalty. Could we just abolish the death penalty and not worry about it at all. Stephen reclaims that we as humans have respect for human dignity, we can punish people for their crimes but we can’t deprive them of everything, which the death penalty does. With the death penalty it’s basically saying to that convict that your life is basically worthless and has no human value. Nathanson believes we are not in any right position to affirm that to anyone. The main reason why this is such a big dispute is that people think a murderer has forfeited is rights as a human being, or morally free to kill him or her. To me though they do forfeit some of their rights but at the same time they are still a human being like the rest of us. Moral meaning of the constitution even bans cruel and unusual punishment to any given …show more content…
This would change our view towards every person that has committed murder, or even people who committed horrific crimes. With a Subjectivism system, I would have a certain amount of people be the judge of a person’s case. This could change the death penalty completely; it gives people an opportunity to observe a case deeply, not just to judge a person on what his actions were. Actions don’t describe a person as a human being, and that’s why I think Stephen eye for an eye system was wrong. You can’t punish someone based on what they did; Subjectivism will give anyone on this planet a chance to avoid the death penalty. How you might ask, to someone murder might be the biggest sin in the world, but in this system that’s not a moral fact. It’s just how you feel and your opinion towards the objective but again there is no moral objective fact towards your statement. A view like this is what we need, other people can justify that a murderer doesn’t deserve the death penalty. People will open their minds more broadly and look at the person as a human being. We are human beings and have rights, when someone murders we should look at them as a human being not this horrible nightmare that deserves to