Essay about The Symbolism Of Abolishing The Death Penalty

1274 Words Oct 22nd, 2016 6 Pages
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 principle of punishment. That is where he got an eye for an eye from, the principle tells us to treat criminals just as they treated their victims. For example, it advises us to commit highly immortal actions, like raping a rapist or torturing a torturer. But this principle does have a con to it, what about the drunk drivers, air polluters, or even spies. Nathanson does think another principle is plausible, where increasingly bad crimes must be met with increasingly harsher punishments. Again another dilemma with this principle is that it offers no justification for the death penalty. Doesn’t even tell us how harsh those actual punishments should be. Nathanson even concludes this argument by introducing symbolism to abolish…

Related Documents