Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Kant theory and capital punishment
Kants view on inherent dignity
Kants view on inherent dignity
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Kant theory and capital punishment
Kants view on inherent dignity
Kants view on inherent dignity
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Kant theory and capital punishment
The idea of cruelty is taken up again with the sentencing of the criminals to the death penalty. The author criticizes the death penalty system in the USA and brings
The World Health Organization informs readers the horrific fact of one murder happening each minute. Which in turn calculates to be 1,440 murders each day. Surprisingly, on Earth, only one species has the rational capacities to pull this task off. Without a doubt humankind stands out by a landslide. For the same matter, humans also tend to inspect the tiniest judgments and hold grudges until satisfaction happens at a certain degree.
If someone is willing to take away someone else’s life, then they need to be willing to give up their own and have consequences. I am a retentionist, and agree with Kant when he states that the criminal deserves to be punished; however, I do not agree that the death penalty is a stronger deterrent than a life without parole. If a criminal has the mindset to kill, they will not be worried about their consequences. I also do not agree with Kant’s retributivism. Although at first thought an ‘eye for an eye’ mentality seems reasonable, how would someone steal from themselves, or who would be the innocent person to rape the rapist?
For society, the struggle between their aspirations to be moral and just and the greater, more abstract moral cost they pay every time they condone a state-sanctioned murder is a never ending battle. No one wishes to be the person who “heard her cries for help but did nothing while an attacker stabbed her to death”, no one wants that on their conscience (Bruck 581). In order to compensate for this occurrence, they try to reconcile themselves by exerting the harshest punishment known upon the perpetrator while distancing themselves from the person. With this first instinct of “an eye for an eye”, capital punishment made its debut with the thought “the advantages, moral or material, outweigh [the cost]” (DMW, VDH 2). In the film, Prejean battles this preconception with the claim that the moral cost society pays far outweighs any benefits it poses.
Most everyday middle class Americans do not recognize the most basic rights we are given daily. We do not look at the value of food, water, or even talking as other people in the world do. Dignity is a most basic human value that we do not observe as POW’s would. During World War II a young olympic runner named Louis Zamperini and friend Russell Phillips (Phil) were drifting on a life raft after their plane crashed into the ocean. They were picked up by Japanese boat and transport to POW camps where they were brutally treated.
Throughout criminal history, there have been various attempts to justify murder. In a widely controversial case, two English seamen, Dudley and Stephens, killed an innocent and helpless boy and subsequently devoured his body to preserve their own lives (“The Crown versus Dudley and Stephens”). This case raises an important moral issue: Is it morally right to kill an innocent person out of necessity for one’s own survival? Three moral theories – Mill’s Utilitarianism, Aquinas’ Natural Law Theory and Kant’s Deontological Theory – provide different arguments on the morality of Dudley and Stephen’s action. However, Kant’s Deontological Theory offers the most well-founded analysis because it absolutely precludes necessity as a reason for murder and cannibalism.
Although Immanuel Kant rejects Utilitarianism, his insights are relevant to the issue of ethics in terms of protecting an individual’s rights. Kant fundamentally believes that human
Moral, ethical, legal and political discussions use the concept of ‘ human dignity’ to express the idea that a being has an innate right to be valued, respected and to receive ethical treatment. In the modern context, dignity can function as an extension of the Enlightenment- era concepts of inherent, inalienable rights. The English word “ dignity “ attested from the early 13th century, comes from the Latin term ‘ dignitas’ which means ‘worthiness’ and from the French term ‘dignite’ .In ordinary modern usage it denotes ‘respect’ and ‘status’. The term ‘human dignity’ is however, rarely defines out right in the legal discussions.
Locke advocates for the use of reason to determine what punishment is necessary to successfully reprimand the criminal and to discourage future crimes. However, a stronger approach is taken when the crime is murder. A person who commits murder no longer is viewed as a person, but rather as a beast that cannot be governed by law or reason. By committing murder, the guilty person is declaring war on all of mankind, and no longer is required to be treated as a person (Locke, 274). When a person enters into this ‘state of war’, others have the natural right to destroy them on the grounds that their life was threatened.
When considering how best to apply a moral framework to one’s own life, it can be helpful to look to Immanuel Kant ’s book, The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals to inform our actions. It is in this book that Kant develops his moral framework for all humans, and Kant introduces the ideas of a ‘supreme principle of morality’ and his famous ‘categorical imperative’. For the purpose of this paper, I will critically engage with Kant’s ideas surrounding the second formulation of the categorical imperative, the Formula of Humanity. I will begin by explaining what the supreme principle of morality is, and its relation to the Formula of Humanity.
On page nine and ten of the first chapter of The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals by Immanuel Kant, he discusses the propositions that he believes make up a moral decision. Kant believes that a moral decision is based on an individual’s principle. He defines a principle as one’s reason for acting. According to Kant, a moral decision is when an individual ignores their personal feelings, or what they want to do, and do something only because it is what they “should” or “ought to” do.
These concepts, in which women and children are always viewed as the innocent. This brings on a moral dilemma into whether it is right to kill as collateral damage or right intention, a means to an
This essay will explain the studied psychological effects and origins of the mind of a serial killer. It all has to do with psychology and the way a killer was raised or the environment they lived in. There’s a battle of nature vs. nurture in this particular topic and they will be explored and details will be given about serial killers and how they think with examples of childhood trauma. SERIAL KILLERS
Respect is a feeling of deep admiration for something or someone evoked by that person’s capabilities, accomplishments, and achievements. It is a topic that has been debated on and discussed from the philosophical points of east and west throughout history. Despite the fact that we have a definition for respect, it is still difficult to grasp the understanding of what respect really is. This essay will focus on the two main philosophers interesting views on respect; Immanuel Kant, and Confucius, and on how the meaning of respect has evolved thought time. Confucius was a Chinese philosopher, teacher, and politician who lived in 551 BC.
Dignity elements Certainly, ‘Dignity is not only recovers the life of people, but also improves their lives significantly’. There are many dynamics that reinforce the dignity’s presence in the society. The first dynamic is philosophy in the organization.