Capital Punishment: Kantian ethics
Kant used the idea of 'moral duty' to work ou what to do in an ethical situation. He made the distinction between two kinds of imperatives (commands):
1. Hypothetical: you should only follow this if a goal is wanted and these are not moral commands to the will because they do not apply to everyone.
2. Categorical: these are moral demands that apply to everyone, they are not dependant or personal. Categorical imperatives are based on an objective 'a priori', this means moral facts not opinions which are known before an experience.
Kantian Ethics has three formulations:
1. The formula of the law of nature which states that you should act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should be a universal law.
2.The formula of end in itself which states that one should treat other people 'as ends, and never as a means to an end only'. YOu should never use people without considering their autonomy.
3.Formula of a kingdom of ends states that one should act as if they are one of the law makers in the 'Kingdom of Ends', which is an imagined perfect society.
A Kantian perspective on capital punishment
A Kantian perspective would be that criminals should only be given what they deserve, they should be punished simply for committing capital crimes, and for no other reason, as well as that the punishment should be proportionate to the crime. Kant believed that punishment should always be the response for a crime, and that it is immoral for a criminal to go unpunished; this is Kant's form of equality. Kant referred to this as 'jus talionis', meaning 'the right of retaliation'. However, when it came to punishing people, Kant opposed this but only if it took away their humanity. Therefore, capital punishment would be seen as immoral in a Kantian perspective if the convict had tortured his victim, and for him then to be tortured as his punishment. He believed that act was carried out then the punisher would be dehumanising himself and lowering himself to the criminal's level. However, although Kant believed that it was immoral to use the act of punishment that a criminal performed on his victim, Kant did believe in capital punishment. Kant insisted that according to 'jus talionis', murderers must die. HOwever, to universalise capital punishment would mean that is effectively legalizing killing other humans which is immoral. Although Kant believed that capital punishment was effective in society, and was moral, from his own theory, it should be viewed as immoral. To conclude, a Kantian perspective would be that capital punishment is immoral since you could not universalise it, however it would benifit society by removing a dangerous killer and the acion is or a better purpose.
1. Hypothetical: you should only follow this if a goal is wanted and these are not moral commands to the will because they do not apply to everyone.
2. Categorical: these are moral demands that apply to everyone, they are not dependant or personal. Categorical imperatives are based on an objective 'a priori', this means moral facts not opinions which are known before an experience.
Kantian Ethics has three formulations:
1. The formula of the law of nature which states that you should act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should be a universal law.
2.The formula of end in itself which states that one should treat other people 'as ends, and never as a means to an end only'. YOu should never use people without considering their autonomy.
3.Formula of a kingdom of ends states that one should act as if they are one of the law makers in the 'Kingdom of Ends', which is an imagined perfect society.
A Kantian perspective on capital punishment
A Kantian perspective would be that criminals should only be given what they deserve, they should be punished simply for committing capital crimes, and for no other reason, as well as that the punishment should be proportionate to the crime. Kant believed that punishment should always be the response for a crime, and that it is immoral for a criminal to go unpunished; this is Kant's form of equality. Kant referred to this as 'jus talionis', meaning 'the right of retaliation'. However, when it came to punishing people, Kant opposed this but only if it took away their humanity. Therefore, capital punishment would be seen as immoral in a Kantian perspective if the convict had tortured his victim, and for him then to be tortured as his punishment. He believed that act was carried out then the punisher would be dehumanising himself and lowering himself to the criminal's level. However, although Kant believed that it was immoral to use the act of punishment that a criminal performed on his victim, Kant did believe in capital punishment. Kant insisted that according to 'jus talionis', murderers must die. HOwever, to universalise capital punishment would mean that is effectively legalizing killing other humans which is immoral. Although Kant believed that capital punishment was effective in society, and was moral, from his own theory, it should be viewed as immoral. To conclude, a Kantian perspective would be that capital punishment is immoral since you could not universalise it, however it would benifit society by removing a dangerous killer and the acion is or a better purpose.