Critical Thinking Exam 3

Demeanor assumption

to some extent, we all believe we can judge others based on observations of their demeanor alone

Asymmetrical insight

we wrongly tend to believe that we have greater insight into other people’s thoughts and motivations than they have into ours

Why shouldn’t we be too quick to abolish capital punishment?

doing so might lead to more overall injustice than we have now

What is the concern for the premise that abolishing capital punishment risks more overall injustice?

it isn’t always acceptable to wrong one person to prevent the occurence of rights violations to others, even when the latter involves greater overall injustice

Individual failings

competent vs. incompetent person

Institutional failings

competent individual may fail just because of the rules and systems in place

Wrong by its very nature

moral and principle

State doesn’t have the legitimate authority to execute people

moral and principle

Killing is justified only in self-defense

moral and principle

Execution is too barbaric

moral and principle

The risk of executing the innocent is too great

moral and practice

There is significant maldistribution in how capital punishment is meted out

moral and practice

The cost is excessive

non-moral and practice

Retribution

“backward-looking” justification; person is thought to deserve the harm on the basis of their wrongful action, which has already happened

Deterrence

“forward-looking” justification; the point of harming the person is to bring about greater compliance with laws going forward

Bedau’s first premise on capital punishment

the severity of a punishment should fit the seriousness of the crime (lex talionis)

Bedau’s second premise on capital punishment

the severity of capital punishment is uniquely suited to the crime of murder

Bedau’s conclusion on capital punishment

so, murderers should receive capital punishment

Bedau’s first response

We can accommodate the idea behind P1 without capital punishment. All we need is a scheme of punishments in which the most severe punishment is reserved for the most serious crime

Bedau’s second response

Our actual practice shows that our commitment to P2 is less straightforward than it seems. If we really accepted this premise, we wouldn’t restrict capital punishment to first-degree murder, since second-degree murder is still murder.

Bedau’s third response

Even if we suppose that capital punishment is the only way to satisfy the demands of justice, there may be other constraints on acceptable punishments. We regard some conceivable punishments as beyond the pale, as too barbaric and uncivilized, even if they aren’t unjust. Maybe capital punishment should be seen as beyond the pale as well.

What is Bedau’s ultimate thought on capital punishment?

Maldistribution, if substantial, makes capital punishment seriously unfair, and the data shows that maldistribution is indeed substantial

Bedau’s final thoughts

if we believe that we can ensure adequate retribution without capital punishment for second-degree murder, why not think we can ensure adequate retribution without capital punishment for first-degree murder?

What justification does Van den Haag endorse?

backward-thinking or retribution

What do Van den Haag and Bedau disagree on?

the moral significance of maldistribution

Van den Haag thinks that the only morally relevant question is what?

Whether the individual deserves the punishment on the basis of their actions. And, whether other, equally deserving individuals receive the same treatment has no bearing on that question

What are Van den Haag’s thoughts on maldistribution?

if punishment isn’t otherwise unjust, facts about how it’s distributed won’t make it unjust