Pro-Deterrence

Discuss the issue of deterrence in relation to capital punishment. The best answers will cite arguments and scientific evidence from both sides of the debate.

What is the logical argument?

deterrence works across the spectrum of punishments—from fines for speeding to imprisonment for theft—so it is logically consistent to believe that the most severe punishment, execution, would have an even greater deterrent effect for the most severe crime, murder.

What does position does the logical argument appeal to?

Utilitarian and empirical - human behavior is responsive to consequences, thus if murderers know the outcome of their action is death the dear should rationally influence their behavior. Moral reasoning is grounded in observable behavior patterns.

What is the best bet argument?

Pragmatic and grounded in expected utility, when faced with uncertain options the ‘best bet’ is to choose the option with the least harmful downside.

What does position does the best bet argument appeal to?

Moral uncertainty justifies conservative action, i.e., action that prevents the worst-case scenario. All lives - from victim to offender - are morally weighed the same. This approach would likely prioritize the potential to save lives over the moral cost of state-sanctioned murder.

What is the bad faith argument?

A meta-ethical critique of abolitionist principles, specifically regarding consistency and moral credibility. Opponents of the death penalty operate from an absolutist perspective - one in which execution is always wrong, regardless of outcomes.

What does position does the bad faith argument appeal to?

If killing one guilty person prevents the deaths of many innocents, why isn’t that moral? The value of a human life, in this case, is quantifiable and outcomes can be predicted accurately - the dilemma concerning this is whether it is more rational to uphold a universal norm or remain flexible in the face of empirics?

Final reflection

1. Logical argument assumes behavior is rational and consequences shape conduct.

2. Best bet assumes moral uncertainty permits consequentialist decision-making.

3. Bad faith critiques moral purity versus practical, empirical consequences.