Utilitarianism

Kant pursues a purely retributive view of capital punishment against utilitarians’ because Kant believes that the unequivocal defense of the lex talionis-the law (or principal) of retaliation, often expressed as “an eye for an eye”, Kants view on punishment is to be inflicted in a measure that will equalize the offense and when this offense is murder, only capital punishment is sufficient to equalize. (Social Ethics, pg. 107).
What Kant is justifying against the utilitarians’ point of view, is utilitarians’ recognize that punishment consists of the infliction of evil on another person, but they hold that such evil is far outweighed by future benefits that will accrue to society. (Social Ethics, pg. 108). In the text book Social Ethics, the utilitarians’ further their argument by providing examples. They say that imprisonment might lead to such social desirable effects as (1) rehabilitation of the criminal, (2) incapacitation, whereby we achieve temporary or permanent protection from the imprisoned criminal, and (3) deterrence of other potential criminals. (pg. 108). From the above, it would say that utilitarians’ would be abolitionists. Abolitionists by definition in Social Ethics, refuse to support any employment of the death penalty. Whereas the opposite which would classify Kant, is a retentionist, according to Social Ethics, those that are in favor of retaining the death penalty. (pg. 106)
What retentionist such as Kant are arguing in contrast with the utilitarians’...

Utilitarianism

Login

Join