The Expedited Death Penalty - Essay Sample

Introduction

The California governor is facing a moral dilemma due to the increase in cases of homicide in the state. Since various studies have indicated that the death penalty deters crime many the people of California want the law to be executed. However, an ethical dilemma arises because possibly some people were convicted for crimes they did not commit. The civil rights activists are against the execution of the law since they argue that it will miscarriage justice since there is a high probability that at least 2% of this convicted for death are innocent. Thus, executing this law means that some innocent people will be killed.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

On the other hand, the election is near, and if the governor fails to fulfill the will of the people, then it is likely that many will not vote for the governor considering that 73% of the people want the law to be passed. Therefore passing the legislation will enable the governor to retain his seat. The governor's moral dilemma is to choose whether to uphold the dignity of human life or to fulfill the pleasure of the masses and his political interests.

According to Kant's deontology, human rights and the dignity of human life should be respected in all circumstances. Therefore, killing a person where guilty or not is not right because it violates the dignity of human life. Kant argues that human beings should act regarding their moral obligations and not because they want to fulfill their pleasure (139). In this case, it will be unethical if the governor passes the law to please the masses to achieve his political ambitions. Although, homicide risks other people's lives it will be wrong to kill those who commit the crime since there are different ways of administering justice. Thus, if Kant deontology was to be applied in this case, then the governor should not pass the law since it disregards the dignity of human life.

Kant's Deontology vs. Utilitarianism

Immanuel Kant coined a deontological moral philosophy commonly referred to as Kantianism. According to Kant the rightness of the action is determined by duty, goodwill, and moral worth. He argues that people have a fundamental obligation of respecting the dignity of a person and should therefore not use people as a means, even when the results expected are positive (Sandel, 103). Many people perceive freedom as the ability to act according to their will. However, Kant argued that if our desire controls our actions, then we work like slaves to those desires (Sandel, 108). Kant holds strong regard to human rights and argues that all human beings should be respected regardless of their status or location (105). Thus human beings should not be used as instruments to bring collective happiness. From Kant's perspective, universal laws should be applied in determining the morally moral decisions.

On the other hand, Jeremy Bentham founded the ideology of utilitarianism. The utilitarianism was opposed against the natural laws. From Bentham's perspective, morality is based on the principle of maximum happiness and the balance of pleasure over pain. According to Bentham, the right action is the one that maximizes utility (Sandel, 34). With the utility, he referred to something that produces pleasure or happiness and also prevented pain or suffering.

There are significant differences between the two perspectives. Analyzing the Peter Singer's work on Famine, Affluence, and Morality using the tow perspectives can help in illustrating the differences between the two aspects. Singer perspective is based on the Kantianism perspective. He used the situation in East Bengal where people were dying of famine, lack of shelter and medical care to bring out some ethical issues. Singer noted that deaths and suffering in the region were inevitable; however, the richer nations could alleviate the pain of approximately nine million people who were being faced by this tragedy. He argues that human beings can make and act to prevent such decisions, but it is unfortunate that people do not make the necessary decisions. The people had not taken any significant step to help solve the situation while nations had provided financial aid no one was demanding the governments to increase the funds to give the refugees in Bengal with the basic needs (Singer, 229). The government had not provided enough resources that would support the needs of the refugees for a year. Singer noted that the governments were ready to help other projects which required more finances that maintaining the refugees in Bengal (230). From the Kantianism perspective, it would be moral if the governments prioritized the wellbeing of the refugees in Bengal over expensive funding project. On the other hand, from the utilitarianism perspective providing aid to the suffering population would mean we make some sacrifices both at the individual and the national level. This would mean foregoing happiness and pleasure. On the contrary, people are more inclined to joy and contentment and will not sacrifice their happiness despite being aware of the sufferings of other people.

The case of life-boat ethics can also demonstrate the difference between Kant's deontology and utilitarianism. The boat had four English sailors who were strained in a life safer boat for 24 days. At some point, they decided to kill the youngest member of the crew named Richard Parker and ate his flesh to survive. After they rescued, the three survivors were arrested and tried in court. One of the survivors became a state witness while the remaining two were tried. In their defense, they argued that they had fed off the body of the victim to survive (Sandel, 32). The act raised moral concerns. From Kant's perspective, the act was wrong even if it enabled three men to survive. Killing an individual to save the lives of other people disregards the value of human life. Therefore, such an act would not be universally accepted. On the other hand from the utilitarianism perspective, the act might be considered right. This is because although killing is morally wrong killing one person to save the lives of others may be right by killing one member of the crew three men survived by feeding on his body. Since the survivors had families, then it would be a loss if all the men died thus this justifies the killing of the youngest member of the crew who did not have a family, therefore, his death would not be a loss to many.

Complications in Applying the Deontology

Various difficulties can impact the application of Kant's deontology. The first complication is that the deontological approach to molarity does not consider the probable outcomes of an action. This is one factor that makes Utilitarianism more applicable. Lack of a defined path to ethics is another factor that makes it challenging to apply Kant's deontology. For instance, killing is considered to be morally wrong in many situations. However, in some situation killing would morally right for example when one kills to protect himself or herself thus violating the universality of this law.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Kant has a healthy regard for human life. Thus his approach to morals seeks to identify social value and dignity as the basis of morality. The rightness of an action depends on whether one fulfills his or her duty. Kant believed that what is moral is universal; thus it is agreed upon by everyone. However, the deontology has significant weaknesses that may hinder its application in many situations since it does not put into consideration the consequences of an action.

Works Cited

Sandel, M. "Justice: What is the right thing to do? Harvard University Press. p. 32-109. 2009.

Singer, P. "Famine, affluence, and morality."Spring. 1972. p. 229-243. 1972.