ethics

Animal Ethics, Death Penalty

Deontological Kantian Theory

An action is right if it respects the moral rules and wrong if it violates them

good will

• doing the right thing because it is right (motivation)-for the right reasons

• i.e. from a sense of duty

• the only uncoditionally good thing

• only intentions matter

creating a good will

by recognizing duty & acting according to it

Moral Absolutism

Any moral rule that has been proved to have a universal validity, thus it has to be used in all cases the same way

Kantian Deontology

1. good will

2. reason

3. autonomy

4. duty

5. Categorical Imperative

6. Moral Law - moral duties

1st Formulation of the Categorical Imperative - Universalizability

Act only according to the maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law

• examine whether the practice or act can be universalized or not

2nd Formulation of the Categorical Imperative - Humanity

Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only

• examine whether a certain act or practice violates human dignity → humans have infinite moral worth

3rd Formulation of the Categorical Imperative - Autonomy

the idea of the will of every rational being as a will that legislates universal law

• i.e. : Act so that through your maxims you could be a legislator of universal laws

difference between 1st and 3rd formulations

in the 3rd the focus is on our status as universal law givers vs. universal law followers

Objections to Kantian Deontology

1. too rigid & inflexible

2. no hierarchy of absolute duties / conflict of duties

3. problems of indeterminacy

4. counterintuitive conception of moral worth

moral standing

• a beings intrinsic moral importance

• its ability to impose moral demands on others just by virtue of its own nature

• those possesing moral standing and abelong in the moral community must be recognized moral rights (we have moral duties to those who have these)

Criteria for moral standing

1. rationality

2. intelligence

3. autonomy

4. linguistic ability / communicative ability

5. having a range of emotions

6. having a soul

7. being a member of the human species

8. using tools

Categorical Imperative

• it is the fundamental principle of our moral duties

• imperative: because it’s a command addressed to agents who could follow it but might not

• categorical: applies to us unconditionally or simply because we posses rational wills, without reference to any ends that we may or might not have

Kant on our duties towards animals

• animals aren’t self-conscious

• they’re only a means to an end (end=man)

• we have no direct duties towards animals

• our duties towards them are only indirect duties towards humanity

Indirect Duties towards Animals

If then any acts of animals are analogous to human acts and spring from the same principles, we have duties towards the animals because thus we cultivate the corresponding duties towards human beings

we can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals

Peter Singer on Animal Rights

• the essential feature that determines moral standing is sentience

• a being has moral importance in its own right if & only if it is sentient

• rationality & autonomy don’t determine the scope of the moral community

• species membership is in itself irrelevant to moral standing (speciesism)

sentience

refers to the capacity to experience pleasure and pain

Singer’s Argument

1. Premise 1: If it is wrong to prematurely kill, eat & experiment upon severely brain damaged human orphans, then it is wrong to prematurely kill, eat & experiment upon nonhuman animals

2. Premise 2: It is almost always morally wrong to prematurely kill, eat & experiment upon severely brain damaged human orphans

3. Conclusion: Therefore, it is almost always wrong to prematurely kill, eat & experiment upon nonhuman animals

i.e. both animals & brain damaged human infants are equally sentient, & possessed of identical interests

=> thus, there’s no plausible basis for assigning greater moral importance to one over the other

• giving moral priority to one over the other would be an unjustified form of discrimination

Singer’s Main Thesis

1. We should extend to other species the basic principle of equality that most of us recognize should be extended to members of our own species

2. A liberation movement demands an expansion of our moral horizons & an extension or reinterpretation of the basic moral principle of equality

3. Practices previously regarded as natural & inevitable come to be seen as being based on an unjustifiable prejudice

4. We should make the same mental switch in our attitudes & practices towards non-human animals, extending to other species the same principle of equality that we recognize to members of our own species

Singer’s Central Argument

1. Premise 1: Beings have interests just in case they’re capable of suffering

2. Premise 2: Human beings & many non-human animals are capable of suffering

3. Premise 3: (mini conclusion) Therefore, human beings & many non-human animals have interests

4. Premise 4: The interests of every being are to be taken into account & given the same weight as the interests of any other being (Basic Principle of Equality)

5. Premise 5: Human beings & many non-human animals have an interest in avoiding pain

6. Conclusion: Therefore, the interests non-human animals have in avoiding suffering is to be given the same weight as the interests human beings have in avoiding suffering

Basic Principle of Equality

The interests of every being are to be taken into account & given the same weight as the interests of any other being

Capital Punishment

An institutionalized practice designed to result in deliberately executing persons in response to actual or supposed misconduct & following an authorized, rule-governed process to conclude that the person is responsible for violating norms that warrant execution

Main Question

• moral justification

• On what grounds, if any, is the state’s deliberate killing of identified offenders a morally justifiable response to voluntary criminal conduct, even the most serious of crimes, such as murder?

Capital Punishment - Approaches

1. Retributivism (backward looking)

2. Utilitarianism (forward looking)

Retributivism

• focus on past conduct that merits death as a penal response

• principle of an ‘eye for an eye‘

• justify the amount of punishment by ‘looking back‘ to link directly the amount, kind, or form of punishment to what the offense merits as a penal response (whether a punishment ‘fits‘ the crime)

• Kant aligns with this (‘If we imprison the criminal in order to secure the well-being of society. we are merely using him for the benefit of others.‘)

lex talionis

• ‘the law of retaliation‘

• ‘an eye for an eye & a tooth for a tooth‘

• ancient retributivism

Kant vs. Rehabilitation

• aim of rehabilitation → no more than the attempt to mold people into what we think they should be

• thus, it is a violation of their rights as autonomous beings to decide for themselves what sort of people they will be

2 Kantian principles that should govern punishment

1. Punishment simply because one has committed a crime

2. Principle of Equality - Proportional Punishment

Kant’s Argument on D.P.

1. Kant regards punishment as a matter of justice. The guilty have to be punished, or else justice isn’t done

2. Executing someone may be a way of treating him as an end, i.e. as a rational being

Nathanson’s Retributivism

1. Equality Retributivism

2. Proportional Retributivism

• neither of these retributitive approaches can provide a justification for the death penalty

Equality Retributivism

• committed to the principle that punishment should be equal to the crime (‘an eye for an eye‘) → we ought to treat people as they have treated others

• fails → it doesn’t provide a systematically satisfactory criterion for determining appropriate punishment, as a principle, it generates unacceptable answers

Problems with Equality Retributivism

1. where a crime involves barbaric & inhuman treatment, Kant’s principle tells us to act barbarically & inhumanly in return

2. in many cases, the principle tells us nothing at all about how to punish

• we couldn’t in fact design a system of punishment simply on the basis of an ‘eye for an eye‘ principle

Possible (Kantian) Response

• the principle doesn’t require that punishments be strictly identical with crimes

• only that punishment produces an amount of suffering in the criminal which is, equal to the amount suffered by the victim

• still not possible

Proportional Retributivism

• committed to the principle that punishment should be proportional to the crime

• doesn’t require that we treat those guilty of barbaric crimes barbarically → we can set the upper limit of the punishment scale to exclude truly barbaric punishments

• fails → (as an excuse for the d.p.) because it doesn’t require that murderers be executed

Two symbolic messages (abolishing the d.p.)

1. express our respect for the dignity of all human beings, even those guilty of murder

2. restraining the expression of our anger against murderers, we would reinforce the conviction that only defensive violence is justifiable

implementing proportional retributivism as a punishment system

A corresponding scale of punishments would be constructed, & the two would be correlated. Punishments would be proportionate to crimes so long as we could say that the more serious the crime was, the higher on the punishment scale was the punishment administered

Role of the State

• set an example of proper behavior

• educational purpose

• not encourage people to resort to violence to settle conflicts when there are other ways available

• avoid the cycle of violence

• since → death penalty isn’t an instance of defensive violence = ought to be renounced