There are more than a few ethical crises over various stages of human life, most of which involve an innocent unborn child or perhaps a braindead patient surviving on life support. The arguments for and against the preservation of human life at least in the case of abortion can all agree on one thing, allowing abortion is allowing an innocent life to die at mercy of another human beings decision. It seems like a pretty good argument against abortion, don’t you think? But what if the life is not so innocent? Most could agree on the idea that a clear cut conviction of a man for murder is not the making of an innocent human being. Even more could agree that because of this man’s violation of another human being’s right to live, he has now forfeited is own right to live.
Primoratz supports the idea of a murderer getting his just deserts. A crime should be proportional to the punishment, and the values taken from the victims should be stripped of the offender. It is his belief that the offense alone is enough for the state to exercise the right to punish the individual. The consequences of the …show more content…
The question of what criminals deserve is easily answered by this principle, they get what they give. Since Primoratz also backs up his view with the mutually assumed value that human life is sacred, it seems morally justified in the taking of a human beings life if that person has taken one himself. All in all, it can be neatly (and bluntly) summarized in four words: Murderers deserve to die. This is a very Kantian perspective, the murderers making exceptions for themselves in the moral order of the world is unjust. If you apply the golden rule to murderers, you could say they want to be killed by the way they have treated other human beings. However, this is where the opponents of capital punishment have a chance to jump
Primoratz supports the idea of a murderer getting his just deserts. A crime should be proportional to the punishment, and the values taken from the victims should be stripped of the offender. It is his belief that the offense alone is enough for the state to exercise the right to punish the individual. The consequences of the …show more content…
The question of what criminals deserve is easily answered by this principle, they get what they give. Since Primoratz also backs up his view with the mutually assumed value that human life is sacred, it seems morally justified in the taking of a human beings life if that person has taken one himself. All in all, it can be neatly (and bluntly) summarized in four words: Murderers deserve to die. This is a very Kantian perspective, the murderers making exceptions for themselves in the moral order of the world is unjust. If you apply the golden rule to murderers, you could say they want to be killed by the way they have treated other human beings. However, this is where the opponents of capital punishment have a chance to jump