1
The Death Penalty Is Not Morally Justified: A Philosophical Critique
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course Code
Instructor’s Name
Due Date
, 2
The Death Penalty Is Not Morally Justified: A Philosophical Critique
Capital punishment is one of the most debated items of present-day criminal justice
systems. Proponents of capital punishment use arguments in an attempt to have capital
punishment thought of as a deterring factor, a punishment for the offenders, and as being fair
to the victims; nevertheless, these arguments are grounded on moral flaws. This paper aims at
making an informed argument towards the effect that the death penalty is not moral based on
three comprehensive ethical theories, namely Mill’s utilitarianism, Kant’s deontological
ethics, and conservative justification by Ernest van den Haag. Even though these thinkers
have different opinions on capital punishment, the critical evaluation of their reasons,
mutually supplemented by the criticism of the system's absurdities, mistakes, possibilities,
and human worth, shows that the death penalty is not for the sake of moral justice.
The predominant view of the morality of an action was in terms of utilitarianism, in
that an action is right if it results in the highest good for the most people. In his book, John
Stuart Mill wrote a number of points for and against utilitarian ethics in support of the death
penalty, stating that it could effectively act as a sanction against other acts of a similar nature
and do less harm than a lengthy imprisonment. In the speech to the Parliament, Mill wrote,
“Does the fine of a criminal denote a want of respect for property or the imprisonment of
personal liberty? And why should death, the greatest punishment that man can inflict on his
fellow creature, be the least effectual of all means of prevention of crime?” The choice of this
type of punishment seemed not to have been based on a rational consideration at all.
Nevertheless, it can be demonstrated why the death penalty ought not to be supported even
under the shade of Mill’s utilitarian perspective.
Contrary to Mill’s premise on arguing that executions deter more than life
imprisonment in preventing murder, several modern empirical researches fail to offer
convincing evidence that death penalties are more effective as a preventative measure than
The Death Penalty Is Not Morally Justified: A Philosophical Critique
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course Code
Instructor’s Name
Due Date
, 2
The Death Penalty Is Not Morally Justified: A Philosophical Critique
Capital punishment is one of the most debated items of present-day criminal justice
systems. Proponents of capital punishment use arguments in an attempt to have capital
punishment thought of as a deterring factor, a punishment for the offenders, and as being fair
to the victims; nevertheless, these arguments are grounded on moral flaws. This paper aims at
making an informed argument towards the effect that the death penalty is not moral based on
three comprehensive ethical theories, namely Mill’s utilitarianism, Kant’s deontological
ethics, and conservative justification by Ernest van den Haag. Even though these thinkers
have different opinions on capital punishment, the critical evaluation of their reasons,
mutually supplemented by the criticism of the system's absurdities, mistakes, possibilities,
and human worth, shows that the death penalty is not for the sake of moral justice.
The predominant view of the morality of an action was in terms of utilitarianism, in
that an action is right if it results in the highest good for the most people. In his book, John
Stuart Mill wrote a number of points for and against utilitarian ethics in support of the death
penalty, stating that it could effectively act as a sanction against other acts of a similar nature
and do less harm than a lengthy imprisonment. In the speech to the Parliament, Mill wrote,
“Does the fine of a criminal denote a want of respect for property or the imprisonment of
personal liberty? And why should death, the greatest punishment that man can inflict on his
fellow creature, be the least effectual of all means of prevention of crime?” The choice of this
type of punishment seemed not to have been based on a rational consideration at all.
Nevertheless, it can be demonstrated why the death penalty ought not to be supported even
under the shade of Mill’s utilitarian perspective.
Contrary to Mill’s premise on arguing that executions deter more than life
imprisonment in preventing murder, several modern empirical researches fail to offer
convincing evidence that death penalties are more effective as a preventative measure than
