Utilitarianism View On Capital Punishment Essay

When it comes to topics heavily debated from a moral standpoint, the death penalty is near the top of the list. The death penalty has been debated for years because it is difficult to satisfy everyone. What I mean is there are people who strongly support the punishment, and people who strongly believe it should be abolished. No one can answer can please everyone. The morality of the death penalty has been questioned for years. Some people believe it is a reasonable punishment for offenders who have killed someone, others think there is no reason for humans to murder humans. I am on the side of the death penalty being moral, and I specifically agree with the utilitarianism view on capital punishment. The three most important reasons for the

The exact definition of retribution is “punishment on someone as vengeance for a wrong or criminal act. People would argue the death penalty is moral because people need to be properly punished. A strong argument can be made that the punishment needs to fit the crime. By this I mean if someone committed a murder, their punishment should be to die as well. In addition to bringing retribution to the offender, the death penalty is a form of deterrence. A deterrent is essentially something that convinces people to not do something. In this case, the deterrent would be the threat of the death penalty. By this logic, it will convince people to not commit crimes because of the threat of the death penalty. The reason I bring this up is deterrents are not immoral. The death penalty is a deterrent and a form of retribution at its core, so in that sense, it cannot be considered immoral. An argument can be made that it is immoral to allow a murderer to live. People do take issue with this line of thinking. They think that humans should under no circumstance kill other humans. At the same time, people need to be punished if they commit heinous acts, and the death penalty is a punishment. Punishments, like deterrents, are not an immoral thing in society. Kids learn to avoid

The death penalty has proven to be an effective form of protecting citizens. Let’s say someone rapes seven different people, if they are dead, they will never hurt anyone again. The death penalty is moral in the sense of protecting society because it ensures that these horrible people will not harm anyone again. The main argument that continues to be brought up is the worth of human life. There is a belief that regardless of morality, all humans deserve to live. If we applied this logic to real life, then someone who killed someone out of self-defense would be charged with first-degree murder. This would tie back to the idea that all humans are “of equal intrinsic value”. Thankfully, most people do not view self-defense that way. There are principles that state that human predators are subhuman, and therefore it is morally good for one to protect themselves in an act of self-defense. When it comes to what negates the highest moral end in society, murder is at the top of the list. A murderer can only be punished by being killed themselves, and it would be moral ( Bidinotto 2000). Another debate that gets brought up in discussions about the death penalty is the difference between justice and revenge. I either see the two terms being used interchangeably, or I see justice being called moral and revenge being called immoral. To clarify, the main difference between the two is when it comes to morality.