Unit 6: Intersocietal Issues (ETHICS)

Intrasocietal Issues: Mill - Speech in Favor of Capital Punishment:

Mill is a utilitarian. He looks at the consequences of the action to determine whether or not an action is right. Please list all the utilitarian arguments Mill provides in order to support his view that the death penalty should not be abolished. What do you think about them?

They want to produce the least amount of pain for the greatest amount of people. Punishment should be the least painful. He believes that the death penalty kills two birds with one stone, as thinks that forcing the person to live the rest of their life in prison is a harsher punishment. Additionally, he believes in the deterrence of the death penalty. I don't exactly agree with his points because deterrence has been proven wrong, and the death penalty in practice has been used unjustly.

Intrasocietal Issues: Mill - Speech in Favor of Capital Punishment

What is Mill’s response to the view of the sanctity of human life?

He thinks that the suffering of people should be considered. He says it's unreasonable to think the death penalty shows a lack of regard for human life because we don't view fining and imprisonment as a lack of respect for property or personal freedom. Since we value personal property, freedom, and human life, we're willing to fine, imprison, and use the death penalty as punishment to show our respect for those values.

Intrasocietal Issues: Mill - Speech in Favor of Capital Punishment

Which argument against the death penalty does Mill give serious consideration?

He says that the only argument that Mill gives serious consideration to is that capital punishment be replaced with penal servitude, as this also takes the freedom and life away from the criminal.

Intrasocietal Issues: Nathanson - An Eye for an Eye?:

What are the seeming advantages of lex talionis?

The advantage of lex talionis (CLASSICAL FORM) is that it allows us to treat others in the way that we were treated by them. This follows traditional philosophical thought. This can be barbaric and seems easy at the surface level but in reality is rather complex. However, it can't tell us in many cases how to punish (ex: drunk driving, arson, rape, hijacking a plane, etc.). FOCUSED ON THE TOPICS ON "What someone deserves"

Intrasocietal Issues: Nathanson - An Eye for an Eye?:

Explain what Nathanson means by the two problems with retributivism (lex talionis).

Nathanson sees that retributivism doesn't provide a solution to instill morality into those who've committed the worst of crimes, and it doesn't provide adequate criteria for determining appropriate levels of punishment.

Intrasocietal Issues: Nathanson - An Eye for an Eye?:

Why do proportional retributivism and equality retributivism not provide support for the death penalty?

Equality retributivism doesn't provide support for the death penalty because it calls to do the same to the criminals as they have done to society, meaning that they should be burned if they committed arson and tortured if they committed torture. It tells us neither what criminals deserve nor how we should treat them. Proportional retributivism doesn't support the death penalty because it doesn't outright say that murderers should be executed, it just says that those who murder should be punished with a proportional punishment on the scale. TWO CONCERNS are inhumane and the crime cannot be repeated to the person

Intrasocietal Issues: Nathanson - An Eye for an Eye?:

Go over the thought experiment (rescuing a drowning person) in on page 78 (ch. 6). Who deserves the least and who deserves the most praise in your opinion? Come up with your own ranking of the four examples and explain the reasons for your ranking.

1st: F in #3 because she risked her own life to save E, without thinking of any reward except saving a worthy life.

2nd: Superman in #4, because he is a superhero and uses his powers to save a worthy life. However, he was in no way risking his life to save G.

3rd: C in #2 because she saved D's life, but only because she wanted a chunk of D's wealth as a reward for saving his life. She wouldn't have saved D if she didn't think about the reward.

4th: A in #1 because he only saves B's life to get the money that they both robbed. A then tries to kill B to keep the money for himself. He wouldn't have saved B's life if it weren't for the money.

- Nathanson believes that we must consider reasonable effort when it comes to these situations. WE CANNOT determine what someone deserve.

- We distribute punishment so that society is protected.

Intrasocietal Issues: Reimann - The Justice of the Death Penalty in an Unjust World:

Why is “the question of the justice of the death penalty in principle” different from “the question of the justice of the death penalty in practice”?

The two questions are different because the principle simply creates an objective system that distributes penalties for various crimes, while the practice can be determined subjectively and can either be carried out fairly or unfairly to those who committed the crimes. When we adopt a policy, we don't simply use it for everything but we choose a sequence of events that requires that policy to be carried out. We hold people responsible by giving them harsh consequences for their actions, despite whether they believe the consequences are fair or not. Thus, we apply a policy that is just in principle but administered unjustly, it's just that we chose an unjust policy. REIMANN BEILVES THAT IN THOERY DEATH PENALTY IS CORRECT BUT IN PRACTICE IT IS NOT BECAUSE THE FOUR CONDITIONS

Intrasocietal Issues: Reimann - The Justice of the Death Penalty in an Unjust World:

How is Reiman going to proceed in his paper?

Reiman will provide a connection between the moral evaluation of policies in principle and the moral evaluation of policies in practice. He'll ask whether the death penalty is just in principle and whether it's just in practice in society at that time.

Intrasocietal Issues: Reimann - The Justice of the Death Penalty in an Unjust World:

What is Reiman’s view of deterrence and retribution?

Reiman's view of deterrence when it comes to capital punishment is that if it was a better way to prevent potential murderers, then it would be non-controversial. The problem is that it's hard to tell whether it is more effective than life without parole or other less brutal punishments. This approach is utilitarianist in the way that people must find the least amount of suffering when it comes to capital punishment. He doesn't like the deterrence approach much because it focuses too much on the effects on people other than the person who committed the crime and requires too much research to find non-impactful statistics to support capital punishment. However, he does like retributivism because it focuses on its impact on the murderer, and forces them to face moral guilt. He agrees with the "eye for an eye" perspective, as he thinks it makes murderer understand that they are equal to their victims, and as long as the punishment is devoid of revenge it is valid.

Intrasocietal Issues: Reimann - The Justice of the Death Penalty in an Unjust World:

What are, according to Reiman, the four conditions which characterize the imposition of the death penalty in the United States, and what are the implications for “the question of the justice of the death penalty in practice”? Do you agree with Reiman’s conclusion?

According to Reiman, the four conditions that characterize the imposition of the death penalty in the United States are discrimination in the application of the death penalty among murderers, discrimination in the definition of murder, discrimination in the recruitment of murderers, and life on death row as torture. The first pertains to how racism plays a huge role in who's given the death penalty (more black people are sentenced to death, and murderers of white people, especially women, are more likely to be sentenced to death). The second alludes to how many different forms of murder aren't given the death penalty, but take similar effort or motive to do so. The third point addresses how most people on death row are poor. The fourth states that we torture prisoners for a long period, and then sentence them to death, which is extremely harsh. These come together to create a very unjust policy that is wrong to adopt in practice in the U.S. I agree with his conclusion because historically the death penalty has been disproportionally given to minorities who murdered or accidentally killed people, while many white murderers have been given life in prison or less.

Contemporary moral philosopher Michael Walzer (mentioned by Adele Cortina) has developed an approach to ethics that

is based on a distinction between 'a thick and particularist morality', embodied in each particular society, and 'a thin and universalist morality', able to spread beyond the frontiers

Adela Cortina mentions two major disadvantages of utilitarianism to become a global ethics. Please complete: 1) It is a comprehensive doctrine of the good that is not shared by all the social groups of societies with liberal democracy, and even less so by non-liberal cultures.

2) It is aggregationist and, therefore, it permits sacrificing the rights of the individual for the rights of the community when necessary

Adela Cortina claims that ethical relativism is unsustainable in daily life

yes