Kant and Mill’s Positions on Capital Punishment

The death penalty is often called the death penalty or the death penalty of a crime. This is a controversial topic that has been discussed by many people and great thinkers. The two famous figures are Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. Both of them support the death penalty, but the reasons for their conclusion are totally different. I personally oppose the death penalty, but my personal opinion on this contains a number of complex factors from two people and my personal opinion.

Classical utilitarianism is an ethical theoretical approach introduced by philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. A scholar like Immanuel Kant of "legal philosophy" in front of them regards punishment as a moral obligation. Kant believes that sanctions are not for the promotion of good but for direct punishment of perpetrators. Classical utilitarianism also shifts the point of punishment to its purpose and result. Based on the Utilitarian approach, sanctions can be justified if sanctions can bring the greatest benefit to most people. Punishment is reasonable if you can prevent you from creating public safety from crime.

Immanual Kant provides another form of retaliatory defense against the death penalty, and this reason is not rooted in revenge. On the contrary, for Kant, the grounds for the death penalty have the ability to make a rational and free choice, so everyone is worthy and deserves respect. Murder is also worthy of respect; therefore, we respect him in a way he insists that people will be treated. Therefore, we execute the murderer. This seems to be a distorted version of the golden rule. An important issue for Kant to justify the death penalty is that we tell us that only the ideal rational murderer can process it even though many killers are actually unreasonable It is that.

Another major Utilitarian, John Stuart Meal, embodies the unique aspect of the Utilitarian approach, but in defending the death penalty. In a speech issued as a member of Congress in 1868, Müller believed that the death penalty was thought of as a punishment for a "serious violence incident" of serious murder ("Speech ...", 268). Mill insists that "rapid drama of rapid death" is actually far less than "longevity in the most difficult and monotonous work". Hope "(" Speech ... ", 268). When Sorell briefly summarizes Muller's position," The hardest effort of life is actually severe punishment than I think, the death penalty is even more serious than that It seems like "(" Increase of murder ... ", 204). Death penalty is a better deterrent for others and less pain and suffering for criminals, as the deterrent effect of punishment depends greatly on how it looks.