Capital Punishment: Utilitarianism

This moral form was founded by Jeremy Bentham, and "Utilitarianism" comes from "utility", which means usefulness. Utilitarian thinks the outcome of the bill is a true measure of its quality. Because this theory emphasizes the means of endings, it is a theory of purpose or result theory of ethics. Utilitarianism is based on the principle of utility: act in this way, targeting the largest number of maximum foods

First of all, Utilitarians seem obvious to oppose the death penalty as it leads to extreme distress for criminals. However, if this pain is offset by a positive result, that pain is justified. The death penalty can help to cut off criminality because it can stop future criminals. If a criminal receives death penalty, you will not be able to commit further crimes that contribute to social security. The family members of the victims are also comforted and the death penalty imposed on the murderers will end them. After all, if this is the most preferred way to make society a more happy place for most people, then Utilitarians will agree to the death penalty.

The most common defense of the death penalty is based on utilitarian reasons. For Utilitarians, punishment is generally reasonable only if it produces a greater balance of happiness and misfortune. The death penalty is justified by preventing criminals from repeating the crime, or by stopping criminals from deterring the crime. Both of these contribute to a greater balance of social well-being. There are several direct problems with this reasoning. First, the burden of proof is on the advocate of the death penalty, indicating that the same effect can not be achieved with less punishment (such as life imprisonment). Utilitarian aim is to reduce happiness as much as possible, and this is particularly important as it is necessary to impose two penalties if the other conditions are the same. The second and more fundamental problem of utilitarian death penalty defense includes the fact finding process

The second and more fundamental question of the utilitarian defense of the death penalty is related to the fact finding process. His argument should be supported by empirical evidence, since Utilitarians are de facto asserting about the beneficial social impact of the death penalty. In the absence of such reliable empirical evidence, the Utilitarian position must be dismissed. There are two types of "evidence evidence": case evidence and scientific evidence. Case evidence includes independent findings that seem to relate to the two situations, in which case it is an improvement of the death penalty and the social situation. Given the death penalty issue, the seriousness of people's lives, evidence of anecdotes is not enough to establish a causal relationship between the death penalty and social condition improvement. Instead, scientific research is necessary. Both sides are also affected by this discussion