Ethical Reasoning

  

Ethical Question

Is capital punishment for first-degree murder morally justified? 

 

Please read these assignment instructions before writing your paper  as they contain very precise and specific instructions on both the  content and format requirements. You should download the

provided outline

and use that to structure your paper, and consult the

assignment guidance

and

modeled example

for additional help. Finally, before submitting your assignment please use the

checklist

to ensure that you have completed all of the requirements.

Overview

This course has three written assignments that build upon one another  and are designed to take you step-by-step through a process of writing a  paper that identifies an ethical question, examines the context,  issues, and arguments surrounding the question, and attempts to defend  an answer to that question using strong moral reasoning.

In the Week 1 assignment, “Ethical Question,” you chose an ethical  question, provided an introduction, a position statement and supporting  reason, and an opposing position statement and supporting reason.

In the Week 3 assignment, “Applying an Ethical Theory,” you explained  utilitarianism, deontology, or virtue ethics, including its core moral  principle or ideal, and applied that theory to the topic by  demonstrating how its principles would support a particular position on  your ethical question.

In this final written assignment, you will combine what you have done  in these two exercises by examining an ethical issue and defending your  own position on an ethical question regarding that issue.

This final written assignment should be written in essay form with the following clearly labeled sections:

1. Introduction
2. Ethical Argument
3. Explanation and Defense
4. Objection and Response
5. Conclusion

The paper should be between 1,300 and 1,500 words, utilize three  scholarly resources, and include a title page and reference page.

Part 1: Introduction

In this section of the paper, you will begin with your ethical  question, introduce the topic and paper, and close with a thesis  statement.

• The ethical question may be the same as your Week 3 written  assignment (“Applying an Ethical Theory”) or a revised version of it.
• The introduction should be revised in a way that reflects your additional thinking on the issue and question.
• End this section with a thesis statement that states your position  on the issue (the answer to the ethical question you believe is  strongest) and provides a brief summary of the main ideas you will be  presenting in the paper. Please see the assignment guidance for examples  of thesis statements.

Place the introduction under the Part 1: Introduction heading.

Part 2: Ethical Argument

In this section of the paper, you will present the strongest argument  you can in support of the position you have stated in your  introduction.

• This will be similar to the “supporting reasons” you offered in the  first assignment; however, this argument should reflect your research  into the key ethical issues that need to be identified and addressed,  the arguments on different sides of this problem, and the theories of  moral reasoning we have studied in the class (you will discuss the  specific details and implications of the moral theories in the next two  sections).
• You can think of this as a summary of the main argument you would  give if you were an attorney trying to convince a jury of your position.

Place this information under the Part 2: Ethical Argument heading.

Part 3: Explanation and Defense

In this section, you will explain and defend your argument by drawing  on the moral theory that aligns most closely with the argument you  presented in Part 2. This may be the same theory you discussed in your  second assignment, but it may also be a different theory.

• You must first explain the theory in general terms similar to how  you explained a theory in your second assignment, including a brief  account of the historical background of the theory and the  philosopher(s) associated with it and general overview of the core moral  ideal or principle of the theory, including the way it guides and  constrains moral reasoning.
• You should then clearly show how your argument represents an application of that form of moral reasoning.
• In other words, if the argument you present in Part 2 is  utilitarian, deontological, or virtue-based (teleological), you will  want to explain utilitarianism, deontology, or virtue ethics in general  terms, then explain how your argument from Part 2 reflects or draws upon  the core principles and values of that theory. Please refer to the Week  3 assignment instructions for directions on how to explain and apply  the moral theory.

Place this section under the Part 3: Explanation and Defense heading.

Part 4: Objection and Response

In this section of the paper, you will present the strongest  objection you can to your argument, and briefly defend that objection by  appealing to a different ethical theory than the one you focused on in  Part 3.

• Briefly explain the core moral ideal or principle of the theory and  how that could be the basis of an objection to your argument. For  instance, if you explained and defended your own argument by applying  the principles of virtue ethics, you could raise an objection from the  perspective of utilitarianism by briefly explaining the core utilitarian  principle and how applying that principle could lead someone to a  different conclusion than the one you are defending.
• Next, you should respond to the objection by explaining why it is  not strong enough to undermine the main argument in defense of your  position.
• See the assignment guidance for suggestions on how to effectively respond to the objection.

Place this section under the Part 4: Objection and Response heading.

Part 5: Conclusion

In this section of the paper, provide a summary of what you have done  in the paper by briefly describing what you accomplished in each of the  above sections.

Place this section under the Part 5: Conclusion heading.

Resource Requirement

You must use at least three scholarly resources, only one of which  may be the textbook. In other words, you must use at least two scholarly  resources in addition to the textbook.

Acceptable ways of using a source include providing a quotation,  summary, or paraphrase; merely providing a citation, especially when it  is unclear how or where the text supports your claim, is not sufficient.

If you need help with finding additional resources or are unsure  about whether a particular resource will count toward the requirement,  please contact your instructor.

For sources to count toward the resources requirement, they must be  cited within the text of your paper and on the reference page. Sources  that are listed on the references page but not cited within the paper do  not count toward fulfilling the resources requirement.

In your paper,

• Introduce the topic and paper.
• Provide a thesis statement.
• Present an argument in support of the position.
• Defend the argument by explaining and applying the ethical theory that most closely aligns with the argument.
• Present an objection to the argument by appealing to a different ethical theory.
• Respond to the objection.
• Provide a conclusion that describes what was accomplished in each of the sections of the paper.

The Ethical Reasoning Final Paper

• Must be 1,300 to 1,500 words in length (not including title and  references pages) and formatted according to APA style as outlined in  the Ashford Writing Center’s APA Style  (Links to an external site.)resource.
• Must include a separate title page with the following: 

  Title of paper
  Student’s name
  Course name and number
  Instructor’s name
  Date submitted

For further assistance with the formatting and the title page, refer to

APA Formatting for Word 2013 (Links to an external site.)

.

• Must utilize academic voice. See the Academic Voice (Links to an external site.) resource for additional guidance.
• Must use at least two scholarly sources in addition to the course text. 

  The Scholarly, Peer Reviewed, and Other Credible Sources (Links to an external site.)  table offers additional guidance on appropriate source types. If you  have questions about whether a specific source is appropriate for this  assignment, please contact your instructor. Your instructor has the  final say about the appropriateness of a specific source for a  particular assignment.

• Must document any information used from sources in APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center’s Citing Within Your Paper (Links to an external site.) guide.
• Must include a separate references page that is formatted according  to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center. See the Formatting Your References List (Links to an external site.) resource in the Ashford Writing Center for specifications.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT 1

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT 2

Capital Punishment

Michael Hurrigan

PHI 208: Ethics and Moral Reasoning

David Smith

January 18st, 2021

Capital Punishment

Ethical Question

Is capital punishment for first-degree murder morally justified? 

Introduction

Societies agree that if individuals go against the law, they should be punished in relation to the crime committed. Differences are observed in terms of the punishment to be applied when dealing with serious crimes such as first-degree murder. Capital punishment, popularly known as the death penalty, is a significant variation that has led to a contentious debate between supporters and opponents (Deigh & Dolinko, 2011). First-degree murder typically attracts the harshest sentence, but this varies according to societies’ moral standing and law rule.

Capital punishment is defined as the execution of an individual found guilty following the due legal process. Capital punishment, or the death penalty, is the form of legal punishment that involves putting someone to death as punishment for a capital offense (Thames, 2018). It can only be used when the guilty party is found to have committed murder. It applies to serious crimes such as first-degree murder. The death penalty is applied in countries worldwide to deter individuals from committing heinous crimes such as first-degree murder (Deigh & Dolinko, 2011). However, some countries have prohibited it in law as well as in practice. States in the US vary in terms of its application concerning how the prosecution calls for its application. For example, Texas applies the death penalty for individuals that have been convicted of capital murder.

Various ethical positions are held with regard to capital punishment. Supporters argue that capital punishment is suitable for heinous crimes such as capital murder. Additionally, it deters individuals from committing similar offenses. On the contrary, individuals against capital punishment argue that corruption violates human rights and does not offer the criminals a second chance to rethink their actions. The paper explains Kantianism’s position on capital punishment based on the views that the founder of the theory, Immanuel Kant, shared on the form of punishment.

Explanation of the Ethical Theory

Kantianism is synonymous with the deontology ethical theory that was introduced by Immanuel Kant. The position held by Kant is based on the concept of retribution. It follows that retribution has been a widespread view that has been used to justify capital punishment over the years. Capital punishment was applied for various offenses in Europe in the past, and this could have informed Kant’s ideas (Deigh & Dolinko, 2011). Notably, Kant recommended the application of capital punishment for murder. In Kant’s day, capital punishment was recommended for treason, but he did not support its application in such a context. The application of capital punishment and deontology can be used to justify its application.

The theory’s moral principles support its application while addressing capital punishment as the best sentence for first-degree murder. The first principle is the basis of the view, and it is regarded as enlightenment rationalism. According to the principle, an action can be right if it fulfills duty. Capital murder does not satisfy any obligation; therefore, it should be punished (Deigh & Dolinko, 2011). The second principle that is valuable to the theory is the categorical imperative that acts on all individuals in spire of their desires and interests. The categorical imperative principle was developed using various approaches. This leads to the universality principle that stipulates that an action is permissible if it applies to all individuals without contradiction. All individuals agree that capital murder is an atrocious crime that should be accorded a deserving punishment, which is the death penalty (Walsh & Hatch, 2018). The other principle states that human beings should not treat others as the means to an end. The rationalization principle explains that human beings are rational, and the law should guide their actions. Kant also offers exceptions as he draws the line between imperfect and perfect duties. Capital murder is wrong and is not covered in the peculiarities of duties discussed by Kant.

Deontology applies to a wide range of ethical issues in the modern one. One of the most contentious topics that can be explained using the topic is euthanasia. The moral question that relates to the matter states: Is euthanasia ethically justified as an approach for minimizing patients’ suffering? According to Kantianism, enlightenment rationalism argues that actions are acceptable if they fulfill the duty. Euthanasia is defined as the termination of an individual’s life. It is wrong for health practitioners to terminate human life as it goes against maintaining patients’ welfare (Deigh & Dolinko, 2011). According to the categorical imperative, there exists a moral law that should be respected and observed by all individuals. The termination of human life is wrong despite their position or condition in life. Euthanasia goes against the universality principle that states that it should be universally applicable for an action to be moral. Views on euthanasia are sharply divided. Hence, the practice cannot be justified morally.

Application of the Ethical Theory

Judging from the fact that the core principle of deontological ethics is the categorical imperative, applying the ethical theory to capital punishment leads to the conclusion that the practice is unethical and immoral. There are basic laws such as the fundamental human rights that should be adhered to by all individuals. A fundamental human right is the right to life that asserts that one should not kill. First-degree murder offenders go against this universal law, and Kantianism argues that they deserve the death penalty. This is due to the aggravating factors surrounding the crimes they commit (Deigh & Dolinko, 2011). In most instances, capital murder entails heinous acts such as poisoning, killing a law enforcement officer in the line of work, or premeditation. As a result, individuals who commit such crimes should receive a deserving sentence: the death penalty.

The second principle that applies to Kantian ethics is universality. According to the principle, actions are permissible if they can be accepted internationally without any opposition. It has been identified that all people are against capital murder. This means that individuals that commit first-degree murder deserve capital punishment. While other ethical theories assert that the means justify the end, deontological ethics is based on the concept of duty (Deigh & Dolinko, 2011). Human beings should protect life at all costs, and there should be severe consequences when they fail.

Human beings are logical, which means that they undergo a comprehensive thought process before coming up with a decision. It is clear that individuals that commit murder think about it in most instances, and they do not show remorse for their actions (Deigh & Dolinko, 2011). Accordingly, Kant concluded that the death penalty could be an effective way of preventing individuals from committing murder. In summary, Kant proved that capital murder is wrong and can be deterred and reattributed using capital punishment.

References

Thames, B. (2018). How should one live? Introduction to ethics and moral reasoning (3rd ed.). San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education.

Deigh, J., & Dolinko, D. (2011). The Oxford handbook of philosophy of the criminal law. New
York: Oxford University Press.

Walsh, A., & Hatch, V. L. (2018). Capital Punishment, Retribution, and Emotion: An
Evolutionary Perspective. New Criminal Law Review, 21(2), 267-290.