Application of proportionalism to immigration & capital punishment

Overall, what does proportionalism say about immigration?

• Aquinas’ Natural law supports immigration because there are no conflicts between the precepts and goods.

• Therefore, in terms of proportionalism, the first duty would be to follow the deontological rule regarding immigration i.e. to help, treat immigrants with kindness & compassion.

• Therefore immigrants should be welcomed and is seen as a good act.

• However, for the morality of immigration to be decided, by the proportionalist, each unique case of immigration would have to be considered - the rights and wrongs of immigration will need to be weighed.

What are the reasons to support immigration?

• Not helping the immigrants can be seen as a bad act - the intention of helping them is to uphold the Natural Law primary precept of preservation of life.

• This also reminds us they are entitled to the same human rights and dignity as any other human.

• Supporting immigrants is the most loving/agape intention so they are able to embrace new opportunities.

• There is more value in accepting immigrants because more justice and protection can be achieved.

• If it is right to accept immigrants, it is also morally right to cap the number of people who can immigrate to limit the pressure on community and minimise pre-moral evil.

What are the reasons which do not support immigration?

• A leader of the receiving country may stop the immigrants because of love for his own people who are already poor and cannot afford to support a mass influx of immigrants - hence not breaking the NL primary precept of ‘orderly living in society.’

• Immigration will inevitably lead to some kind of pre-moral evil e.g. animosity especially when resources are shared between large numbers of people.

• The intention of some immigrants may be wrong (moral evil) e.g. to bring the war to the new country and opening up the potential consequences of violent deaths in the new country.

In conclusion, what does proportionalism say about immigration?

• The rights outweigh the wrongs therefore, there is not a proportionate reason to break the theological moral rule of helping immigrants.

Overall, what does proportionalism say about capital punishment?

• Aquinas’ NL would be against capital punishment because there is no conflict between the precepts and it goes against the belief in sanctity of life.

• In terms of proportionalism, the first duty would be to follow the deontological rule regarding capital punishment - which is, it is a wrong act because we are going against the primary precept of preservation of life.

• However, for the morality of capital punishment to be decided, by the proportionalist, each unique case of this would have to be considered - the rights and wrongs of capital punishment will need to be weighed.

What are the reasons which support capital punishment?

• While the act of capital punishment is generally seen as morally wrong, there might be unique situations where capital punishment could be seen as the lesser of two evils.

• E.g. if capital punishment serves as a deterrent and potentially saves more lives in the future, a proportionalist may argue that it could be justified.

• Capital punishment may be justified as a ‘right act’ because justice is served when someone has committed horrific crimes and protects society.

What are the reasons which do not support capital punishment?

• Capital punishment is not an indirect action, an accident or a by-product of another action, it is the direct action of killing and therefore a violation of life.

• Capital punishment involves inflicting suffering and intent to kill and this may be considered a moral evil/a sin. - Doing an evil act in the hope some good will come from it (protect society) is condemned.

• Capital punishment cannot achieve the usual aims of punishment i.e. it does not deter offenders, give an offender a chance to reform.

• Instead, less harmful ways can achieve these aims e.g. life imprisonment.

• To use capital punishment for the purpose of protecting society is not an appropriate application of double effect because killing will always be the intention.

In conclusion what does proportionalism say about capital punishment?

• The wrongs outweigh the rights therefore, there is not a proportionate reason to break the theological moral rule of capital punishment is wrong.