Renee Kevern

Jeffery Wood
Phil 1120
May 2, 2015
Take Home Final Part I: Against Any Use of Capital Punishment
Being responsible for ending an individuals life for any reason is a burden that is often
placed on heads of juries and judges all over the nation. No one should have to have the weight
of another persons life on their hands. By examining two moral theories, deontology and
utilitarianism, one can see that capital punishment is not only wrong but places advocates in a
position of immorality.
Deontology views show that morals are based on reason. By examining this reason one
can assess certain duties towards others and that these duties must be universal to all. By these
requirements, one has to admit that we would not be able to sentence all murderers to the death
penalty. Each case has individual circumstances and should be treated differently. According to
this theory, you can only say that the death penalty is moral if it applies to all who commit the
same crime. One may try to use reason to argue that the death penalty deters crime but this
argument would also fail because deontology teaches that we should never treat a person as a
means to an end. The argument for the death penalty does not stand a chance with this theory.
Utilitarianism is perhaps the strongest view against capital punishment. The basis of this
theory is that you should decide what is moral by weighing what will provide the most amount of
good for the most amount of people. An often misconceived argument is that by enforcing the
death penalty, taxpayers are saved the financial burden of supporting a criminal for life when in
fact, the process of trial, appeals, housing, and executions far exceed those of housing an inmate.
The California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice estimated that California
currently spends $137.7 million on death-penalty-related costs each year (Petersen et al.).

Comparing that to information provided by the office of California's nonpartisan Legislative

Analyst, the current annual cost for maintaining an inmate in a state prison is $47,102 (US
Department of Justice). Even figuring all inmates on death row, it is cheaper to house them than
to give a death sentence.
Advocates many also say that the death penalty does the most amount of good by
deterring future crime. Opponents will argue that statistics prove that it does not. In the mid
1960s the rate of executions was nearly zero, finally ending when the Supreme Court struck
down all existing death penalty laws in Furman v. Georgia (408 U.S. 238(1972)). During that
same time period from 1966-1972, the homicide rate increased at an alarming rate, beginning in
1966 at 5.6 to 9.0(per 100,000) in 1972. That rate continued to increase to 9.8 when in 1976, the
Supreme Court reauthorized the death penalty in Gregg V. Georgia (428 U.S. 153(1976)). These
numbers show that while no executions were performed during this time the number of
homicides was still on the rise. In both of the above arguments we can see that the most good for
the general population is to save tax dollars and reduce crime. By upholding the death penalty
neither of these goals is accomplished showing that it is not in societies best interest.
When considering reason and what the most amount of good is, there is no argument that
capital punishment should not be an acceptable form of punishment in our country. Those who
are sentencing convicted criminals to death row are no moral than the criminals themselves.
Works Cited
Furman v. Georgia. 408 U.S. 238. Supreme Court of the US, 1972. Justia US Supreme Court.
n.d. 2 May 2015.
Gregg V. Georgia. 428 U.S. 153. Supreme Court of the US, 1976. Justia US Supreme Court. n.d.
2 May 2015.
PETERSEN, NICHOLASLYNCH, MONA. "Prosecutorial Discretion, Hidden Costs, And The
Death Penalty: The Case Of Los Angeles County." Journal Of Criminal Law &
Criminology 102.4 (2012): 1233. Web. 2 May 2015.
United States. Dept. of Justice. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Crime in the United States, by
State, 2013. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2013. Web. 2 May 2015.

Personal Ethics Take Home Final Part II:

Section 1
a) Autonomy has differing emphasis from a Kantian and Millian perspective. Kant views that
people have the ability to choose and therefore have a duty to make moral decisions. Mill viewed
that it is a liberty that everyone should have the right to choose and should make efforts to
choose that which will go the most good. Abortion from a utilitarian view is that by the mother
has the right to be able to choose whether or not having the baby will do the most good for those
that will be affected by the situation. Looking at euthanasia as it applies to disabled or handicap
individuals, Kant would view that because they are not rational beings and therefore do not have
the ability to choose. Euthanasia would therefore be acceptable.
b) The concept of Equality in Deontology is that all rational beings are created equal and have
equal rights and duties towards one another. Mill's notion of Equality is that we should do all that
we can to make things equal for all. Kant's theory is that we should all be treated the same
because we are equal and Mill argues that we are not equal to begin with and so we should do
whatever we can to make us all equal.
By a deontological notion, all people are equal and deserve equal chance at happiness, therefore
homosexuals deserve the same right to be married that heterosexuals have. It would be
unreasonable to restrict any beings chance at having a happy marriage.
Capital Punishment relates to the Utilitarian notion in that all people should have the equal
opportunity to stay alive and killing would cause suffering to not only the individual but to
others.
c)Aristotle's theory of Virtue Ethics asks the question of what it is to be a good person. Virtues
are attributes or character traits that we each have and are decided because of custom and habit.
His theory is not action ethics and there is not a formula to apply when making moral decisions.
He views that we are all searching for Eudiamonia which is a deep happiness or an activity of
the soul in accordance with virtue.
This theory is most applicable with the contemporary issue of gay marriage. People against gay
marriage seem to take that position because they are holding onto the traditional view of
marriage being only between a man and a woman. These customs hold them to reject change.
d) Nietzsche introduces the idea that social classes decided what was good and what was bad.
The powerful, rich, and noble were considered to be good simply because of their class. It was
bad to be poor, weak, and humble. These notions flip flopped and being prideful and wealthy
became bad. He viewed that there was really no way to know objective values and in a will to
power. From this view we see that man does what will benefit himself the most. This differs from
virtue ethics that would say one should be keep a balance of all things in order to be moral.
Nietzsche would say that sympathy, generosity, and equality are unnecessary.
e)Marx views humans with the desire to produce and accumulate. Humans work in order to gain
better things yet this just perpetuates the problem. The more we accumulate, the more we need
to produce. Thus, we create alienation and are forced to labor. Marx calls for a social reform. He
views that if we distribute resources equally and stop the desire to accumulate that we will all be
happier. We would only work in order to gain basic needs and therefore we would be able to
work less. This is in line with our discussion on consumption and social justice as well as
environmental ethics. The entire race would be able to benefit from equalizing distribution of
resources and the environment would benefit from us using resources frivolously and then

dumping the trash so carelessly when we upgrade to the next big thing.
Section 2:
g) The ring of Gyges goes as follows. The tale is Socrates talking to Plato. There is a ring that
will allow man to become invisible at will and therefore he can act in any way he pleases without
having the consequences of others knowing about it. The story goes on to say that all men will go
against their moral views and do unjust things if the fear of the consequences is removed. This
illustrates that man only does moral things out of fear of what others will think of him or the
consequences. Therefore morality is just a social norm.
i)Pojman's view of Reciprocal Altruism is that one may act in the self interest of another with the
expectation that the individual will act in your benefit at a later time. Egoist claim that you
should only act in your best interest and if helping someone else does not help you in return you
should not do it. Just waiting in hopes that the act will be reciprocated is not enough.
Final questions
1) Abortion, Capital Punishment, and Euthanasia all relate to life and how one defines a
living person and the quality of life that one will lead. It also begs the question of choice
and who should get to make the choice in these matters. I think that someone would need
to put all three issues in the same category and either be for all of them or against all of
them.
If you believe that it is okay to abort a baby that may not live a valuable life, then you would also
agree that allowing Euthanasia in the case of a debilitating handicap would also be just. In the
case of capital punishment you would view that taking the life of someone that no longer
provides benefit to society would be okay.
Likewise the opposite would be true. If you do not think abortion is okay because all life should
be valued, you would not agree with Euthanasia because that life has some significance. The
same would be true with Capital Punishment. Taking the life of even a criminal would not be
considered just.
2) Americans currently are using more than their share of natural resources, act in their own
best interests and do not take into consideration the environment if it hinders their
desires. If natural resources were spread more evenly around the world, those in third
world countries would be healthier and happier people. America is in the category of 20%
of people using 84.2% of the resources. By equalizing that distribution, we would see a
drastic change in what we call our quality of life but more people would benefit.
Americans tend to not look outside of themselves to help others. We often will only act in
others benefit when the act will benefit us as well. We are quick to buy the cool truck
even though driving it will use more fuel and create more pollution. We choose not to
carpool because it may cost us an extra 30 minutes in the day and instead impact air
quality by increasing vehicles on the road. We have numerous electronics sitting in
junkyards that used resources to make and we throw away when we upgrade to the latest
and greatest.