Modify this essay paper: I want you to list arguments for and against, at least 2 reasons for, and at least 2 reasons against. At the end of your paper, I want your decision and which ETHICAL theory

The Death Penalty: An Ethical Examination through the Lens of Utilitarianism

Shristi Khadka

Introduction to ethics

05/12/2023

Introduction

Throughout human history, the highly debated ethical issue of capital punishment commonly known as the death penalty,persists. This form of punishment entails a state intentionally ending an individual's life in response to their committed crime, thus becoming executioner and judge simultaneously. Through utilitarianism,a consequentialist ethical theory, this essay intends to scrutinize some key aspects concerning its application within these parameters for societal benefits or detriments, shedding light on different perspectives surrounding this contentious topic. Philosophers such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill attribute utilitarianism to the proposition that an action's morality is determined by the total utility or happiness it produces. We shall apply these utilitarian principles in evaluating the moral justification of the death penalty.

Utilitarianism and the Death Penalty

Utilitarianism, an ethical framework rooted in consequentialism, offers a viewpoint for assessing the death penalty: it evaluates this action based on its overall utility - aiming to maximize happiness and minimize suffering. Advocates posit that capital punishment serves as society's safeguard by acting as a deterrent; they argue further that utilitarians do not exempt themselves that deterrence requires rigorous empirical scrutiny due to acknowledged pitfalls such as potential wrongful executions of innocents and resultant psychological trauma inflicted upon society. The complex interplay between societal protection and the potential harms associated with the death penalty underscores this ethical analysis, emphasizing a nuanced evaluation's necessity to balance the overall well-being of individuals and communities. Utilitarian scrutiny propels us to scrutinize thoroughly all consequences - positive or negative of employing the death penalty within a broader societal welfare context.

Utilitarianism contests retribution's role as a rationale for the death penalty: it underscores that punishment must extend beyond vengeance, serving an additional purpose. This perspective also scrutinizes ethical issues of racial and socioeconomic bias in applying capital punishment; fairness and justice form the bedrock of any effective society (Rahman &Wadud, 2023). The unique ethical dilemmas raised by the irreversible nature of capital punishment,such as potential harms caused by wrongful executions,necessitate utilitarians to exercise meticulous discernment. We must conduct a helpful evaluation of the death penalty; this necessitates an exhaustive analysis: we need to consider its implications on individual and societal well-being,thus providing a nuanced perspective on this contentious ethical issue.

Utilitarianism and Retribution

Utilitarianismis a consequentialist ethical theory: it offers a precise lens for scrutinizing the death penalty. The principles of utilitarianism dictate that an action’s morality hinges upon its overall utility; this utility focuses on maximizing happiness and curtailing suffering. Advocates for capital punishment assert one particular function serving as a deterrent; they believe in its efficacy in dissuading potential offenders, thus safeguarding society from harm (Vilhauer, 2023). Scrutinizing the empirical evidence on deterrence, utilitarians consider potential negative consequences: they weigh the risk of executing innocent individuals; they ponder society's psychological toll.

Utilitarianism confronts the use of retribution as a rationale for enforcing capital punishment, underlining that punitive measures must extend beyond pure vengeance. This consequentialist viewpoint broadens its examination to encompass ethical issues such as racial and socioeconomic disparity in executing death sentences. The emphasis shifts to fairness and justice, critical to societal efficiency. Utilitarianism, due to the irreversible nature of the death penalty and its potential for biases, necessitates a thorough examination of broader ethical implications. It demands purposeful and justifiable rationale for punishment while urging extensive scrutiny into associated factors like irrevocability and inherent discrimination in the application.

Ethical Concerns and Utilitarianism

Operating within a consequentialist framework, Utilitarianism, due to its evaluation of actions based on their overall impact on happiness and suffering, confronts numerous ethical concerns: these primarily revolve around criminal justice. The death penalty, in particular, raises potent questions from an ethical standpoint, potentially involving biases tied to race or socioeconomic status. This focus threatens fairness principles and harbors the capacity for distorting societal well-being perceptions regarding just punishment. In the death penalty context, utilitarianism's ethical scrutiny emphasizes a system's importance: it must ensure fairness and promote equity, ultimately contributing to society's greater good.

Executions carry a nature that is irreversible; this prompts utilitarians to grapple with the ethical implications and conduct an exhaustive examination of potential harm. The inherent risk of the profound ethical dilemma of wrongful convictions emerges: it is not merely about condemning those who are innocent but also about losing their lives through execution. Utilitarians must carefully balance capital punishment's perceived utility such as its potential deterrent effect with substantial moral costs: executing an innocent person has irreversible consequences. Utilitarians must grapple with the intricate challenge: of weighing a specific action's alleged benefits against its potential for profound and irreversible harm an especially critical consideration in instances involving death penalties where miscarriages of justice are possible(Laros, 2021).

Insisting on a comprehensive assessment of the wider societal ramifications of punitive measures, utilitarianism, this ethical framework significantly emphasizes the psychological impact on communities; it also considers the potential perpetuation of cycles of violence and recognizes inadequacy in addressing underlying social issues. Within this ethical calculus, deterrence alone falls short, a critical point utilitarianism highlights. The necessity for fairness, compassion, and the pursuit of overall happiness underpin our criminal justice system's mission. Utilitarianism advocates a holistic approach: it aims to deter crime and actively contributes to society's well-being by addressing systemic issues; promoting values beyond mere punitive measures becomes paramount in this strategy.

Conclusion

When evaluating this topic through a practical lens, one must consider its consequences with nuance and depth. Traditional justifications for capital punishment face challenges from utilitarianism; it emphasizes conducting an exhaustive examination of society's overall happiness and suffering generated by such penalties. The complexities involved in applying consequentialist theories to real-world issues are underscored by the ongoing ethical debate concerning execution methods, a reminder urging our consideration not only towards multifaceted implications at large but also towards individual cases alike: all part of society’s intricate web woven around criminal justice practices none unaffected when making these weighty decisions about life or death themselves. Society, in its ongoing struggle with the ethical aspects of the death penalty, can gain a valuable perspective from the utilitarian framework. This view fosters informed and nuanced discussions on an enduring moral dilemma.

References

Laros, A. M. (2021). Retributive Justice: A Review of the Ethical Considerations Surrounding Capital Punishment and Solitary Confinement as used in United States Correctional Facilities.

Rahman, M. M., &Wadud, P. (2023). The Death Penalty in Bangladesh: A Review. Australian Journal of Asian Law, 24(1), 117-126.

Vilhauer, B. (2023). Five perspectives on holding wrongdoers responsible in Kant. British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 1-26.