Assignment

Instructions

Return to the topic you chose in the week three assignment. Articulate a specific dilemma in a situation faced by a particular person based on that topic. The situation can be real or fictional.

· Summarize the dilemma.

· Define any needed key terms associated with the dilemma.

· Analyze the conflicts or controversies involved in the dilemma.

Revise and rewrite based on any feedback you received in your previous draft (week three). Reference and discuss any professional code of ethics relevant to your topic such as the AMA code for doctors, the ANA code for nurses, etc.  State whether and how your chosen topic involves any conflicts between professional and familial duties or conflicts between loyalty to self and loyalty to a community or nation.

What in your view is the most moral thing for that person to do in that dilemma? Why is that the most moral thing? Use moral values and logical reasoning to justify your answer

Next, apply the following:

· Aristotle’s Golden Mean to the dilemma

· Utilitarianism to the dilemma

· Natural Law ethics to the dilemma

Which of those three theories works best ethically speaking? Why that one?

Why do the other two not work or not work as well?

 Is it the same as what you said is the most moral thing earlier? Why or why not?

Use the 5 articles from your annotated bibliography to support your answers. (Additional academic scholarly research from the past 5 years can be included as well.) 

Include a reference page at the end of your paper in APA format that includes your bibliography with the annotations 
removed and any other sources used in your final paper.

Requirements

· Length: 4-5 pages (not including title page or references page)

· 1-inch margins

· Double spaced

· 12-point Times New Roman font

· Title page

· References page (minimum of 5 scholarly sources)

2

Ethical Perspectives on the Death Penalty

Ethical Perspectives on the Death Penalty

The morality of the death penalty remains one of the most divisive ethical topics in the world today. Those in favor of the death penalty, otherwise termed as capital punishment, consider it as a form of retributive justice. The idea of retribution encourages that punishment be given because it is deserved and should be such that it matches in severity to the crime committed (Lemons,2020). Therefore, in the case of murderers and those who commit other heinous crimes, the death penalty is what they deserve given the nature of their crimes. In addition to the death penalty being a form of retributive justice, proponents of the death penalty also argue that it is a perfect deterrent. Sentencing those who commit heinous crimes to death acts to deter other people who would have committed the same crime. The fear of punishment by death makes people avoid committing the crimes. While proponents of the death penalty consider it justifiable and even moral, some people disagree with the death penalty.

One of the major arguments against the death penalty is that human beings have no right to kill other human beings no matter the reason. Those who hold this view believe that no matter the nature of the crime committed by a person, the death penalty is not justifiable since human beings have no right to kill other people for whatever reason (Bedau,2019). In addition to the argument that human beings have no right to kill other human beings, those against the death penalty also argue that the death penalty has no rehabilitative effect (Ward et al.,2022). The reason for punishment is usually to rehabilitate the person so that they do not engage in the same crime or another related crime. However, in the case of the death penalty, the offender is killed therefore leaving no chance for rehabilitation.

The Ethical Egoists view on the death penalty

The ethical egoist view is that people take actions, including committing crimes so as to serve their own self-interest (Rajaneththi,2019). Even with the knowledge of an impending capital punishment, a person might still commit a heinous crime if it serves their self-interest. Therefore, according to ethical egoists, punishments that benefit a person are considered ethical and justifiable while those that do not are considered unethical. Considering the case of the death penalty, it is therefore considered unethical by ethical egoists because it does not benefit the person’s interest. In the argument put forth by ethical egoists, there is no case of conflict between loyalty to self and the community. The ethical egoists’ view focuses solely on the perpetuation of one’s self-interest.

The Social Contract ethicists’ view on the death penalty

The social contract ethicists’ view on morality is that one’s moral obligations are dependent on their contract with the society in which one lives (Friend, n.d). Therefore, on the morality of the death penalty, it is justified if that is what the society deems to be a befitting punishment for the crime committed. One of the most popular applications of the social contract theory to justify moral punishment is in the case of Socrates and Citro. Socrates himself, one of the originators of the social contract theory, used it to explain to Citro why he ought to remain in prison and accept the death penalty (Friend, n. d). In the case of a social contract theorist, unlike as was the case with the ethical egoist, there seems to be a conflict between the interests of the self and those of the society. In the ethical egoist theory, the major determining factor of what is moral is whether it perpetuates self-interest, the theory is, therefore, more focused on the self rather than the society. However, in the case of the social contract theorist, a person is viewed as a part of society. In this case, the societal obligations can be considered as one’s national obligations. A person, therefore, has a contracted moral obligation to the society in which one lives.

Best course of action

The arguments pro and against the death penalty are all sound, however, in looking at the death penalty, one should always consider its effectiveness as both a punishment and a deterrent. The death penalty has failed to be both an effective punishment and has also failed as a deterrent. It fails a punishment since it does not rehabilitate the offender. It fails as a deterrent since data shows that despite the presence of the death penalty as a punishment for some heinous crimes, the rate at which those crimes are committed keeps does not decline. Considering other punishments such as long-term imprisonment, there is a lack of evidence to show that it is a more effective deterrent compared to them (American Civil Liberties Union,2023).

The American Medical Association’s (AMA) View on the death penalty and resulting issues

The AMA considers the members’ view on capital punishment to be their moral decision to make. It does not make a blanket decision on the morality or immorality of the death penalty. However, its policy states that physicians have the responsibility of preserving life and ought therefore not to participate in any activities that may result in the taking of a life (Capital Punishment | American Medical Association, n.d). AMA’s code of ethics clearly states that a physician ought not to be involved in any actions even legal that may result in the loss of life. These actions range from directly causing death to taking actions that may result in someone’s execution i.e., for the case of a prisoner.

The view taken by the AMA does result in conflict between the society and those in the health care profession. It offers guidance to its members on how to navigate the ethical dilemma and what entails participation in executing the death penalty while not considering the doctor’s personal view on the matter. Those in the medical profession are allowed to hold differing views on the morality of the death penalty, however as physicians, they are reminded of their foremost responsibility which is the preservation of life.

References

American Civil Liberties Union (2023).The Death Penalty. https://www.aclu.org/other/death-penalty-questions-and-answers#:~:text=Q%3A%20Doesn

Bedau, H. (2019). The Case Against the Death Penalty. American Civil Liberties Union; ACLU.

https://www.aclu.org/other/case-against-death-penalty

Capital Punishment | American Medical Association (n.d.). Code-Medical-Ethics.ama-Assn.org. https://code-medical-ethics.ama-assn.org/ethics-opinions/capital-punishment

Friend, C. (n.d.). Social Contract Theory | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/#H2

Lemons Jr, K. R. (2020). Death Penalty Restorative vs. Retributive Justice.

‌

Rajaneththi, S. (2019). Arguments on death penalty: Theoretical base of classical school of criminology.

Ward, T., Arrigo, B., Barnao, M., Beech, A., Brown, D. A., Cording, J., … & Taxman, F. (2022). Urgent issues and prospects in correctional rehabilitation practice and research. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 27(2), 103-128.

‌
‌
‌
‌

2

Annotated Bibliography: Ethical Perspectives on the Death Penalty

Annotated Bibliography: Ethical Perspectives on the Death Penalty

Bedau, H. (2019). The Case Against the Death Penalty. American Civil Liberties Union; ACLU.

https://www.aclu.org/other/case-against-death-penalty

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) puts forth the argument that the death penalty ought not to be in place since it is a violation of the basic principle that a punishment should not be cruel or unusual. According to the union, the death penalty, given how it is conducted and the atmosphere around it i.e with premeditation and in some cases ceremony by some quotas comes out as a cruel and uncivilized form of punishment. The death penalty should therefore not be practiced because it not only goes against the civil liberties but also the principles of equity. “Principles of equity”, in this case as argued by the union demand that the murderer be considered a human being with a right to life. In addition to going against the principles of equity and civil liberty, it is uncivilized and dehumanizing. I do not agree with the arguments put forward by the union because they largely fail to consider the death penalty as punishment, a form of retributivist punishment. The argument that the death penalty lowers human dignity is not justifiable since, in the case of a murderer, there is no other punishment that shows respect and value for the life of the murderer other than the death penalty. The article is important for the research since it gives a view on how the death penalty is conceived in light of the renewed advocacy for civil liberties as well as equity and respect for human dignity.

‌Rajaneththi, S. (2019). Arguments on death penalty: Theoretical base of classical school of

criminology.

The article takes the penologists’ view of punishment and crime. By using John Locke’s concept of the “Tabula Rasa” the penologists argue that the death penalty is ineffective since it is not rehabilitative yet the criminal can be rehabilitated by exposing them to a new more moral learning environment. “Tabula rasa” in this case refers to the fact that human beings are born with no knowledge of good and bad and only learn it from their environment. Given that humans learn from their environment they could have learned to commit crimes. Penologists argued that they should therefore be given the chance to learn good morals rather than being put through the death penalty. They further argue that the criminal is merely a reflection of the society and is only displaying the products of its “locus of individual pains and rights”.By “locus of individual pains and rights”, means a collection of the negative experiences that drove the criminal to commit the crime. The article puts forward a logical argument but then fails to consider the need for justice and deterrence. Part of the reason punishment is vested for crimes is so that it can deter people from committing the crime and also to ensure that those affected get justice. The article is important in the research since it gives a penologist’s view on the ineffectiveness of the death penalty as a form of punishment.

Evans, I. I. (2022). Life for Life or Life for Less: Voices against the Death Penalty? Nnamdi Azikiwe University Journal of International Law and Jurisprudence, 13(2), 115-128.

The article considers the views about the death penalty in the modern world. Rather than using the philosophical underpinnings of philosophers such as Immanuel Kant who argued for the death penalty and Bedau who argued against it. For the article, the major argument put forward is that of consideration for human rights. It argues that all human beings regardless of their actions have a right to life. By a “Right to life”, the article means that nobody including the government has a right to take anyone’s life.No one should therefore take the life of another as a punishment for a crime no matter how heinous the crime is. However, from the research carried out, the researcher found that modern society is not attaching much value to the life of the victims of capital offenses and is instead attaching more value to the offenders’ lives. The article, therefore, suggests the reopening of the debate on the death penalty rather than blindly following the international law on human rights. One major limitation of the article stems from its suggestion. Reopening the debate on the death penalty will not offer a solution, since, like most philosophical debates, no concrete solution is ever arrived at. The importance of this article in the research is that it gives views on the death penalty as viewed by ordinary people who have no philosophical background.

Heneghan, F. (2021). Philosophy’s Persuasiveness of Death in advance. Philosophy Today. https://doi.org/10.5840/philtoday20211025434

The article examines Kant’s justification of the death penalty. It argues that the defense for the death penalty as given by Immanuel Kant is the most logical philosophical explanation as to why the death penalty ought to be given as punishment for some crimes. However, despite the article praising Kant’s arguments, it exposes them to the “Derrida argument”.The “Derrida argument” postulates that oppositions put forwards against philosophical arguments equally suppress and depend on the metaphor in the very arguments. When the Derrida argument was applied to Kant’s philosophical arguments in support of the death penalty, it fails to challenge the argument. The failure is partly because Immanuel Kant in his propositions made a distinction between the noumenal and the phenomenal. Heneghan then concludes that the condemnations against capital punishment i.e both the contingent and empirical may be sufficient. The findings of this article are rather complex and are probably not in line with the propositions developed in the first instance. While the author states that Kant’s arguments for the death penalty pass the Derrida test, he makes the conclusion that the condemnations of capital punishment are sufficient. The importance of this article is that it shows how philosophical arguments can be subjected to other tests other than the normal method where alternative ideas and paradoxes are used to test the soundness of a philosophical argument.

Udoudom, M. D., Bassey, S. A., Okpe, T. A., & Adie, T. (2019). Kantian and utilitarian ethics on capital punishment. Budapest International Research and Critics Institute (BIRCI-Journal): Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(2), 28-35.

The article recognized the different notions of punishment in the world today and also questions what each society considers to be a befitting punishment for certain crimes. On the matter of the death penalty, the article considers the Kantian and the utilitarian perspectives of the death penalty. When considered from the Kantian angle, the death penalty is justifiable and is a befitting punishment for those who commit crimes such as murder and rape. In addition, the death penalty is also considered to uphold the human dignity of the victim and is therefore considered to be retributivist and equitable. On the other hand, considering the utilitarian approach, the decision ought to be guided by an understanding of the society and the consequences of the action being taken. Therefore for utilitarians, the death penalty is also accepted though for a different reason. In the Kantian approach, the major reason is the “principle of equity” as well as retributivism. The principle of equity is that which demands that all humans are treated equally and their dignity upheld. Given that the article makes a comparison between two ethical theories, its only limitation is the failure to include other ethical points of view such as the virtue theory and the social Egoist theory. However, despite the limitation, the article helps in the research by providing an in-depth understanding of the Kantian and the utilitarian approach to ethical issues more so the death penalty.

Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:

Turnitin Report

Formatting

Title Page

Citation

Outline

Place an Order