Kantian Argument Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Kantian Argument - Essay Example Budeau and Marshal Bedau and Cassell Budeau and marshal hold that the death penalty is morally wrong regardless of the crime committed by the offender. Both opponents of the death penalty have suggested that when analyzing whether a certain crime fit a given punishment, one must look at the impact of the punishment. This includes both the criminal and the society at large (Bedau and Cassell 118). The two argue out that capital punishment creates biased sense of security within the society. Community members feel better in the knowledge that the capital punishment is an option for a severe crime regardless of whether it is applied or not. According to Kant’s framework of ethics (to persons), capital punishment reduces the worth of the criminal who is also is a human being. He further states that the rightness or wrongness of an action is determined, not by the consequences, but by their ability to fulfill our duty. Kant argued that the only intrinsic good thing is a good will ( Bedan 100). An action can only be judged to be good if it fulfills its duty to the moral law. Kant, unlike Pojman, held that particular types of actions (including murder and the death sentence) were extremely prohibited. Before acting, he proposes that there are two issues one need to ponder first. The first is whether everyone will act the same way you act, and whether one’s actions are in contravention to the goals of human beings. With respect to the theory of utilitarianism, individuals ought to undertake an action because it will produce the most happiness than any other action. The act that the morally right action, the action in which everybody has a moral duty to do, is the one that maximizes utility. Utility comprises happiness, well-being, and welfare. Everybody’s happiness counts equally, thus death sentence should be the last option, provided it is the action that provides the most happiness in the end (Bedau and Cassell 159). Pojman Pojman is one of the m ajor proponents of capital punishment. His views strongly suggest that the death sentence acknowledges the offender’s right and worth as a person. This is because it entails treating him as fully responsible for his actions (Bedan 188). Pojman sets out to offer an argument in favor of Capital Punishment as morally right. He builds upon Kantian’s proposition on the importance of an equal penalty for a wrong committed. He accepts the fundamental position that the availability of the death sentence is critical with respect to the argument of justice. He reinforces his argument a critical premise. This proposition holds that a person cannot enjoy their right to life when they have denied the deceased theirs. Provided that our society treats people as free agents and autonomous, capital offenders are required to bear responsibility for their action. The option of an equivalent punishment for an equivalent crime supports the responsibility of nature and government as a citiz enry. MyView Death penalty presents a form of barbaric form of punishment as it is the ultimate denial of human rights. Capital punishment presents a cold-blooded and premeditated killing of human beings by the state. It is not morally correct that the degrading and human punishment be carried out in the name of justice. This is because, as a form of the application of justice, it breaches the right to life as provided in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Amnesty international is