Comparing Utilitarianism And The Death Penalty

"Utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory that places the focus of right and wrong solely on the outcomes of choosing one action and or policy over others (Cavalier 1996) ". It is a morally demanding position and asks one to do the most to maximise utility, and thus always ask one to set aside personal interest for the sake of the whole. In the most extreme of situations, it demands the weaker person to be scarified for the greater good. Its principles, therefore, are characterised by two elements, happiness and consequentialism (Utilitarianphilosophy 2010). Utilitarians therefore believe that the purpose of morality is to make life better by considering one's actions and whether or not those actions increase the amount of good things in

It not only violates the right to live as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Amnesty International 2007 1) but also through the methods used, such as lethal injection, and death by firing squad, "is the ultimate, cruel, inhumane and degrading punishment.” (Amnesty International 2007 1). According to Utilitarianism theory, the death penalty would, therefore, be disapproved, as it "is administered in a way to make the criminal pay for their crime" (Binghampton University 2015). Secondly, there is the belief that the death penalty cannot be morally justified, it is after all the basic moral truth that to intentionally end another’s life is an immoral act, for one generally has interest in self-preservation and perceived future of value (Tzovarras 2002 5). Whilst utilitarianism can be used to support the death penalty, due to it often being perceived to maximise the great pleasure for the greatest number, it can be argued that through the injustices in the justice system, as well as the prejudice in society, that it maximises suffering and pain. The process is not only inhumane, as proven before, but can drag on for quite a lengthy period of time, thus bringing up the pain and suffering experienced by the victim’s family again. Such an example would be the Boston bombing case. It is suggested that the accused will appeal the decision, and that the case, therefore, will be revisited, whether it be in the courtroom or played out in media and social publications. However, in saying this, it can be argued that the death penalty is morally justifiable. Immanuel Kant, one said that "a society that is not willing to demand a life of somebody who has taken somebody else life is simply immoral"