INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY

Unit 5

Moral Philosophy (Ethics)

PREPARED BY MULONGA KABOMBO

LECTURER MULUNGUSHI UNIVERSITY
CELL: 0978354982
EMAIL: [email protected]
5.1 Definition of Moral Philosophy or Ethics
 Ethics, or moral philosophy, is the attempt to achieve a systematic understanding of the
nature of morality and what it asks of us, it is the attempt to discover how we ought to live
and why.

 Ethics or moral philosophy is the study of people’s responsibility in view of their call to self-
actualization; it is the study of their freedom and its demands; it is the study of the
knowledge that brings people to experience greater freedom and greater fulfilment in their
life.

 Ethics are rules, or norms, or principles of behavior based on the ideas about what is
morally good or bad by the use of reason.

 It concerns with what is the best way of people to live, and what actions are right or wrong
in a particular circumstances.

 In practice, ethics seeks to resolve questions of human morality. By defining concepts, such
The Human act.

 Every human action is considered to be carried out voluntarily. There are three constituents of
human act:

(i) Knowledge - human act must be knowing and deliberate.

(ii) Freedom – human act must be free.

(iii) Voluntariness – human act is a voluntary act.

The human act directed towards the good.

 In every human act the will is directed towards an end, towards something apprehended as or
thought to be good.

 The name ethics comes from the Greek word ‘ethos’, which means a “characteristic way of
acting”. Ethics often referred to a code or set of principles by which people live. Thus, we speak
of medical ethics, public service ethics and many others.
Ethics and reason

 We should be very careful about making ethical decisions based on our feelings and emotions.
Our feelings may be irrational. They may be the products of prejudice, selfishness or cultural
conditioning. And our feelings and emotions often change.

 Throughout centuries there has been a dispute concerning the role of reason in motivating
moral actions. For example, a statement such as “abortion is morally wrong”, is it a rational
assessment or only an expression of one’s feelings?

 Moral judgements are different from mere expression of personal taste, such as if someone
says “I like coffee” he does not need to apply a reason because he is only making the
statement about himself , as such there is no implication that everyone else should have the
same taste.

 But if someone says that something is morally wrong, he should give reasons for assessing so,
and if his reasons are sound, then other people must acknowledge them.
5.2 Overview of Ethics (General Ethics and Applied Ethics)
5.2.1 General Ethics
 General ethics is a branch of moral philosophy, or ethics, which is
concerned with general criteria of what is morally right or wrong.
 It involves the formulation of moral rules through different theories
that have direct implication for what human actions, institutions,
and ways of life should be like.
 It includes normative and metaethics.
5.2.1.1 Metaethics: Moral Absolutism vs. Moral Relativism; Objectivism vs.
Subjectivism
a) Ethical Absolutism
 Moral absolutism is an ethical that some (potentially all) actions are
intrinsically (naturally) right or wrong. For instance, stealing, might be
considered to be always immoral, even if done for the well-being of others
(e.g., stealing food to feed a starving family), and even if it does in the end
promote such a good.
 Moral absolutism stands in contrast to other categories of
normative ethical theories such as consequentialism, which holds that the
morality (in the wide sense) of an act depends on the consequences or the
b) Ethical Relativism.
 Ethical relativism is the doctrine that there are no absolute
truths in ethics and that what is morally right or wrong
varies from person to person or from society to society.
One example is the theory of cultural relativism.
c) Moral Objectivism

 In ethical objectivism moral values and virtues are intrinsic, not dependent on anything outside of
them. In ethical objectivism moral law is uncreated and eternal and not subject to any will, divine
or human. (One form of ethical objectivism is moral absolutism.) No will can lessen the
consequence of acts against the law.

 There is no grace in ethical objectivism. In order to avoid punishment, one must perfect one's life
and follow the law perfectly. The law of karma, continuous birth, death and rebirth until such moral
perfection is reached, appears to be the ultimate expression of ethical objectivism. In Hinduism,
Buddhism, and Jainism, for most people one lifetime is not enough for such moral perfection.

 The "Law of Karma" holds that if people act in evil ways, that evil will eventually return to them.
Conversely, if people do good deeds, then they will advance in spiritual progress. This is connected
to reincarnation, where those with a "negative balance" in good deeds will come back in a lower
position in society or the animal world.
d) Moral Subjectivism.

 Ethical subjectivism is the idea that our moral opinions are based on our feelings
and nothing more. On this view there is no such thing as objective right or
wrong.

 When we say that an action is evil we are not stating a fact about action. Rather,
we are saying that we have negative feelings about that action. Exactly the same
would apply to any moral judgement whatever.

 Ethical subjectivisms is not a theory about what makes an act good or bad. It is
theory about the nature of moral judgments. It suggests that no matter what
moral judgment we make we are simply expressing our personal feelings.

 People who accept this theory about will still have moral opinions, but they will
5.2.2.2 Normative ethical theories
a) Cultural Relativism
 Morality differs in every society and is convenient term for socially approved
habits. (Ruth Benedict, Patterns of culture, 1934)

There is need to acknowledge that different cultures have different moral code.

The example of Eskimos

 Polygamy - Sharing of the wives with guest.

 Infanticide, and old people left out in the snow to die.

 The lesson seems clear. Conceptions of right and wrong would appear to difer
from culture to culture. If we assume that our ideas of right and wrong will be
shared by all peoples for all times then we are being naïve.
 It is argued that the idea of universal truth in ethics is a myth. All that exist are
the customs of different societies.

 We cannot argue that these customs are either correct or incorrect because that
would be too imply that there is an independent standard of morality by which
they may be judged. But there is no such independent standard of morality. Every
moral standard is conditioned by the culture to which it belongs.

 This argument has come to be called cultural relativism. And it has certainly
challenges our belief in the objectivity and universally of moral truth.

 It suggest that there is no much thing as universal truth in ethics, and that all we
have are a very variety of cultural codes.
b) Consequentialism
Consequentialism refers to moral theories that hold that the consequences of a particular action form the basis
for any valid moral judgment about that action.
Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right action is one that produces a good outcome, or
consequence. This view is often expressed as the aphorism "The ends justify the means".
The defining feature of consequentialist moral theories is the weight given to the consequences in evaluating
the rightness and wrongness of actions.
In consequentialist theories, the consequences of an action or rule generally outweigh other considerations.
Some questions that many consequentialist theories address:
 What sort of consequences count as good consequences?
 Who is the primary beneficiary of moral action?
 How are the consequences judged and who judges them?
One way to divide various consequentialisms is by the types of consequences that are taken to matter most, that
is, which consequences count as good states of affairs.
According to utilitarianism, a good action is one that results in an increase in a positive effect, and the best
action is one that results in that effect for the greatest number.
c) Utilitarianism
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) are influential proponents of the
Utilitarianism school of thought.
 According to Sober (1991), utilitarian theory is a moral philosophical view which holds that a
morally good or right action is that which promotes the greatest happiness of the greatest number
of people. Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that describes something as good if it produces the
highest amount of good for the most people.

 In other words, the action is right if it produces greatest happiness to the majority or the greatest
number of people. The focus is not on the act but the consequence, whether it brings greatest
happiness to the majority. For instance, if the murder of one person brings greatest happiness to the
majority of that community then according to the utilitarian is a right act.

 Utilitarianism demand that we consider the impact of the consequences on everyone affected by
the matter under consideration. The morality right actions is the one which produces the greatest
overall positive consequence for everyone.
d) Deontology
 Deontological ethics or deontology (from Greek δέον, deon, "obligation, duty"; and -λογία, -
logia) is an approach to ethics that determines goodness or rightness from examining acts, or the
RULES and DUTIES that the person doing the act strove to fulfil.
 This is in contrast to consequentialism, in which rightness is based on the consequences of an act,
and not the act by itself.
 In deontology, an act may be considered right even if the act produces a bad consequence, if it
follows the rule that "one should do unto others as they would have done unto them", and even if
the person who does the act lacks virtue and had a bad intention in doing the act.
 According to deontology, people have a duty to act in a way that does those things that are
inherently good as acts ("truth-telling" for example), or follow an objectively obligatory rule (as
in rule utilitarianism).
e) Virtue ethics
Virtue ethics describes the CHARACTER of a moral agent as a driving force for ethical behaviour, and
is used to describe the ethics according to Socrates, Aristotle, and other early Greek philosophers.
Knowledge bearing on human life was placed highest, while all other knowledge were secondary.
Self-knowledge was considered necessary for success and inherently an essential good.
To Socrates, a person must become aware of every fact (and its context) relevant to his existence, if he
wishes to attain self-knowledge. He posited that people will naturally do what is good, if they know
what is right. Evil or bad actions are the result of ignorance.
If a criminal was truly aware of the intellectual and spiritual consequences of his actions, he would
neither commit nor even consider committing those actions.
Any person who knows what is truly right will automatically do it, according to Socrates.
While he correlated knowledge with virtue, he similarly equated virtue with joy. The truly wise man will
know what is right, do what is good, and therefore be happy.
5.2.2 Applied Ethics
 Applied ethics refers to the practical application of moral considerations. It is ethics with respect
to real-world actions and their moral considerations in the areas of private and public life, the
professions, health, technology, law, and leadership.
 There are many issues in our societies which need ethical interventions to resolve them. Applied
ethics is used in some aspects of determining public policy, as well as by individuals facing
difficult decisions.

 The sort of questions addressed by applied ethics include: "Is getting an abortion immoral?" "Is
euthanasia immoral?" "Is affirmative action right or wrong?" "What are human rights, and how
do we determine them?" "Do animals have rights as well?" and "Do individuals have the right of
self-determination?”
 In this section we will discuss situations such as, abortion, euthanasia, animal rights,
homosexuality and capital punishment.
Issues in Applied Ethics:
a)Abortion
b) Euthanasia
c)Animal Rights
d)Homosexuality
e)Capital Punishment
a) Abortion
 Abortion is the expulsion or removal of a fetus or an embryo from the uterus. An abortion may occur
spontaneously, and in case it is called a miscarriage or spontaneous abortion. Abortion also may be brought on
purposefully, and in this case it is often called an induced abortion.

 Spontaneous abortions, or miscarriages, occur for many reasons, including disease, trauma, genetic defect,
or biochemical incompatibility of mother and fetus or an embryo. Occasionally a fetus or embryo dies in the
uterus but fails to be expelled, a condition termed a missed abortion.

 Induced abortions may be performed for reasons that fall into four general categories:

a) to preserve the life or physical or mental well-being of the mother;

b) to prevent the completion of a pregnancy that has resulted from rape or incest;

c) to prevent the birth of a child with serious deformity, mental deficiency, or genetic abnormality;

d) to prevent a birth for social or economic reasons (such as the extreme youth of the pregnant female or the
sorely strained resources of the family unit).
 The morality, right or wrong of the act of abortion primarily
depend on the definition of personhood. When is the point we can
say the fetus or fertilized egg possess personhood? Is the fetus a
person? A person has absolute right to life by law and morality.
There are many different answers to the question, when is the fetus
become a person?
 One of the most important issues in biomedical ethics is the
controversy surrounding abortion. This controversy has a long
history and is still heavily discussed among researchers and the
public—both in terms of morality and in terms of legality.
The following basic questions may characterize the subject in more
detail:
a)Is abortion morally justifiable?
b)Does the fetus (embryo, conceptus, and zygote) have any
moral and/or legal rights?
c)Is the fetus a human person and, thus, should be protected?
What are the criteria for being a person?
d)Is there any morally relevant break along the biological
process of development from conception or the unicellular
zygote to birth?
Three Views on Abortion
There are three main views:
a)first, the extreme conservative view (held by the
Catholic Church);
b)second, the extreme liberal view; and
c)third, moderate views which lie between both
extremes.
1. The Extreme Conservative View
i. Argument of Human Person Has Right to Life.
 Some opponents (anti-abortionists, pro-life activists) holding the extreme
view, argue that human personhood begins from the time of fertilization
(conception) unicellular zygote and thus – according to the religious stance
– one should not have an abortion by virtue of the imago dei (image of God)
of the human being (Schwarz 1990).
 To have an abortion would be, by definition, homicide, or to the extreme is
committing murder.
 The advantage of the extreme conservative view is the fact that it defines
human personhood from the beginning of life (at conception or the
unicellular zygote); there is no slippery slope.
ii. Argument of Potentiality
 The potentiality principle proposes that embryos and fetuses should not be killed
because they possess all the attributes that they will have as full persons later in life.
 The potentiality principle is summarized in the words of one author who writes
about “abortion and the golden rule”: “If it would be wrong to kill an adult human
being because he has a certain property, it is wrong to kill an organism (e.g., a fetus)
which will come to have that property if it develops normally” (Hare, 1975:209).
 Today, the potentiality principle is invoked almost exclusively by Catholic moral
philosophers to assert full moral status for nascent human organisms, that is, stem
cells, in vivo and in vitro embryos, and fetuses.
 Advocates argue that “all potential persons have a serious right to life” and that
because stem cells, embryos, and fetuses are potential or intrinsic persons, they
should not be killed (Gosselin 2000:437).
2. The extreme liberal view
 They claim that human personhood begins immediately
after birth or a bit later (Singer). Thus, they consider the
relevant date is at birth or a short time later (say, one
month).
The proponents of the moderate views argue that there is a
morally relevant break in the biological process of
development - from conception or the unicellular zygote to
birth - which determines the justifiability and non-
3. Extreme Liberal View
 The advantage of the extreme liberal view is that
its main claim is supported by a common
philosophical usage of the notion "personhood" and
thus seems more sound than the extreme
conservative view because the offspring is far more
developed; as the unicellular zygote.
Arguments in Favour of Abortion
i. Judith Jarvis Thomson on Bodily rights
Many people regard the right to control one's own body as a key moral right. If women are not allowed to abort
an unwanted foetus they are deprived of this right.

 The simplest form of the women's rights argument in favour of abortion goes like this:

A. a woman has the moral right to decide what she can and can't do with her body
B. the foetus exists inside a woman's body
C. a woman has the right to decide whether the foetus remains in her body
D. therefore, a pregnant woman has the right to abort the foetus
 The issue brings many ideas about human rights into brutally sharp focus.

A. every human being has the right to own their own body
B. a foetus is part of a woman's body
C. therefore, that woman has the right to abort a foetus they are carrying
 Abortion is an important element of women's rights because women are more
affected by the abortion debate than men, both individually (if they are
considering an abortion) and as a gender.

 Pregnancy has an enormous effect on the woman involved. As Sarah Weddington

put it to the US Supreme Court in Roe vs. Wade:

“A pregnancy to a woman is perhaps one of the most determinative aspects of her

life. It disrupts her body. It disrupts her education. It disrupts her employment. And
it often disrupts her entire family life”.

 And we feel that, because of the impact on the woman, this … is a matter which
is of such fundamental and basic concern to the woman involved that she should
be allowed to make the choice as to whether to continue or to terminate her
 If abortion rights are denied, then a constraint is imposed on women's
freedom to act in a way that is of great importance to them, both for
its own sake and for the sake of their achievement of equality; and if
the constraint is imposed on the ground that the foetus has a right to
life from the moment of conception, then it is imposed on a ground
that neither reason nor the rest of morality requires women to accept,
or even to give any weight at all.
2. Margaret Sanger, in Favour of Abortion
In summary:

a) women need free access to abortion in order to achieve full political, social, and economic equality
with men
b) women need the right to abortion in order to have the same freedoms as men
c) women need the right to abortion to have full rights over their own bodies (including
d) the right to decide whether or not to carry a foetus to birth) - without this right they do not have the
same moral status as men.
The US Supreme Court decision in Roe vs. Wade, which gave women a right to abortion (under certain
conditions) is seen by many as having transformed the status of women in the USA.

This landmark decision... not only protects rights of bodily integrity and autonomy, but has enabled
millions of women to participate fully and equally in society (Kathryn Kolbert, 1992).
b) Euthanasia
 Euthanasia is the practice of ending the life of a patient to limit the patient’s suffering. The patient
in question would typically be terminally-ill or experiencing great pain and suffering.

 The word “euthanasia” itself comes from the Greek words “eu” (good) and “thanatos” (death). The
idea is that instead of condemning someone to a slow, painful, or undignified death, euthanasia
would allow the patient to experience a relatively “good death.”

Types of euthanasia

 Different practices fall under the label “euthanasia.” Here are some distinctions demarcating
different versions.
 Active euthanasia: killing a patient by active means, for example, injecting a patient with a lethal
dose of a drug. Sometimes called “aggressive” euthanasia.
 Passive euthanasia: intentionally letting a patient die by withholding or withdrawing artificial life
support machine such as, a ventilator or feeding tube.

 Voluntary euthanasia: it is done with the consent of the patient.

 Involuntary euthanasia: it is done without the consent of the patient, for example, if the patient is
unconscious and his or her wishes are unknown. Some ethicists distinguish between “involuntary”
(against the patient’s wishes) and “non-voluntary” (without the patient’s consent but wishes are
unknown) forms.

 Self-administered euthanasia: the patient administers the means of death.

 Other-administered euthanasia: a person other than the patient administers the means of death.

 Assisted euthanasia: the patient administers the means of death but with the assistance of another
person, such as a physician (medical personnel).
 Mercy-killing: The term “mercy-killing” usually refers to active, involuntary or non-voluntary,
other-administered euthanasia. In other words, someone kills a patient without their explicit
consent to end the patient’s suffering.

 Physician-assisted suicide: The phrase “physician-assisted suicide” refers to active, voluntary,

assisted euthanasia where a physician assists the patient. A physician provides the patient with a
means, such as sufficient medication, for the patient to kill him or herself.

 Some instances of euthanasia are relatively uncontroversial. Killing a patient against their will
(involuntary, aggressive/active, other-administered), for instance, is almost universally
condemned.

 During the late 1930’s and early 1940’s, in Germany, Adolf Hitler carried out a program to
exterminate children with disabilities (with or without their parent’s permission) under the guise
of improving the Aryan “race” and reducing costs to society. Everyone now thinks this kind of
euthanasia in the service of a eugenics program was clearly morally wrong.
c) Animal Rights
 The idea of giving rights to animals has long been contentious, but a deeper look into the reasoning behind the
philosophy reveals ideas that are not all that essential.
What are animal rights?

 Animal rights are moral principles grounded in the belief that non-human animals deserve the ability to live as
they wish, without being subjected to the desires of human beings. At the core of animal rights is autonomy,
which is another way of saying choice.

 In other words, animal rights is the idea that some, or all, non-human animals are entitled to the possession of
their own lives and that their most basic interests—such as the need to avoid suffering—should be afforded the
same consideration as similar interests of human beings.

 Animal rights advocates want to distinguish animals from inorganic objects, as they are so often considered by
exploitative industries and the law.
 The animal rights movement strives to make the public aware of the fact that animals are sensitive, emotional,
and intelligent beings who deserve dignity and respect.
 Animal rights come into direct opposition with animal exploitation, which includes animals used
by humans for a variety of reasons, be it for food, as experimental objects, or even pets. Animal
rights can also be violated when it comes to human destruction of animal habitats. This
negatively impacts the ability of animals to lead full lives of their choosing.

Do animals have rights?

 Very few countries have enshrined animal rights into law. However, the US and the UK do have
some basic protections and guidelines for how animals can be treated.

 Advocates oppose the assignment of moral value and fundamental protections on the basis of
species membership alone—an idea known since 1970 as speciesism, when the term was coined
by Richard D. Ryder—arguing that it is a prejudice as irrational as any other.
 They maintain that animals should no longer be viewed as property or used as
food, clothing, research subjects, or entertainment because animals have moral
rights.

 In parallel to the debate about moral rights, animal law is now widely taught in
law schools in North America, and several prominent legal scholars support the
extension of basic legal rights and personhood to at least some animals.
 The animals most often considered in arguments for personhood are bonobos
and chimpanzees. This is supported by some animal rights academics because it
would break through the species barrier, but opposed by others because it
predicates moral value on mental complexity, rather than on sentience alone.
 Critics of animal rights argue that animals are unable to enter into a social
contract, and thus cannot be possessors of rights, a view summed up by the
philosopher Roger Scruton.
 He argues that only humans have duties, and therefore only humans have
rights.
 A parallel argument, known as the utilitarian position, is that animals may be
used as resources so long as there is no unnecessary suffering; they may have
some moral standing, but they are inferior in status to human beings, and
insofar as they have interests, those interests may be overridden, though what
counts as necessary suffering or a legitimate sacrifice of interests varies
considerably.
d) Homosexuality
Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behaviour between
members of the same sex or gender. As a sexual orientation, homosexuality is "an
enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions" to people of the
same sex. It "also refers to a person's sense of identity based on those attractions,
related behaviours, and membership in a community of others who share those
attractions."
Homosexuality is one of the three main categories of sexual orientation, which is
bisexuality and heterosexuality.
Scientists do not know the exact cause of sexual orientation, but they believe that it is
caused by a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences,
and do not view it as a choice.
 In psychology, a person’s behaviuor is a product of nature (genetic factors) and nurture
(environment, social factors).
 The proponent of homosexuality argue from the genetic point of view. They argue that it is GOD
who created homosexuals that way.
 Opponents of homosexuality state that homosexual activity is unnatural. It is against the law of
nature. But, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to
change sexual orientation.
 The most common terms for homosexual people are lesbian for females and gay for males,
though gay is also used to refer generally to both homosexual males and females. The number of
people who identify as gay or lesbian and the proportion of people who have same-sex sexual
experiences are difficult for researchers to estimate reliably for a variety of reasons, including
many gay or lesbian people not openly identifying as such due to homophobia and heterosexist
discrimination.
 The opponents of homosexuality base their arguments on two
grounds, i) law of nature, and 2) biblical text, book of Genesis).
The two creation accounts which introduce the notion of sexuality
in the creation story attest to this fact (Gen. 1:26-27). This
indicates that;
 created beings are sexual, either male or female, responsibility to be
fruitful, carries out his or her activities as either as a male or
female, his or her sexuality is an inseparable part of him or her
 femininity and masculinity are Complementary gifts
 Human Sexuality is a gift from God to human as part of God’s
creation.
 When we read Gen. 2:18-25 Human Sexuality is understood as a force that
draws two persons of complementary sexes together.
 God as concern about man’s loneliness in the statement “It is not good that man
should be alone” (Gen.2:18)
 creates a woman, another human person of different gender, to provide
companionship for man
 Sexuality is not here associated primarily with propagation or genital expression
rather, as a gift of God to man so that man might live in fellowship and not be
lonely.
 Woman comes in as the expression of God’s creativity through which loneliness
is overcome (Gen.2:20-23)
 Man brightens at appearance of a woman i.e. He becomes emotional, excited
and exclaims: “This at last is bone of my bones, and flesh from my flesh”
(Gen.2:23).
The underlying teachings of this text are twofold:
i. Sexuality is basically good in that it enables man to be more complete, more as God wants
him to be, not alone and isolated but in fellowship; a kind of fellowship that birds and animals
cannot provide.
Human sexuality “… part of that created gift which God saw as being ‘very good’… in so far as
it a way of relating and being open to others…” (Cf. The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality,
n.11)
ii. Sexuality is a gift from God. (“sex is not demonic…not dirty, shameful or impure” (Cf. Dwyer,
Human Sexuality, 5)
Therefore Human Sexuality is;
“…a fundamental component of personality, one of its modes of being, of manifestation, of
communicating with others, of feeling, of expressing and of living human love.” (Cf. The Truth
and Meaning of Human Sexuality, n.10)

Homosexual relationships and acts have been admired, as well as condemned, throughout
recorded history, depending on the form they took and the culture in which they occurred.
e) Capital Punishment

Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is a government sanctioned practice whereby
a person is put to death by the state as a punishment for a crime. The sentence that someone be
punished in such a manner is referred to as a death sentence, whereas the act of carrying out the
sentence is known as an execution.

Crimes that are punishable by death are known as capital crimes or capital offences, and commonly
include offences such as murder, treason, espionage (spying), war crimes, and crimes against
humanity and genocide.

The term capital is derived from the Latin capitalis ("of the head", referring to execution by
beheading). Capital Punishment: legal infliction of death as a penalty for violating criminal law.

Throughout history people have been put to death for various forms of wrongdoing. Methods of
execution have included such practices as crucifixion, stoning, drowning, burning at the stake,
impaling, and beheading. Today capital punishment is typically accomplished by lethal gas or
injection, electrocution, hanging, or shooting.
Moral arguments

Supporters of the death penalty believe that those who commit murder, because they
have taken the life of another, have forfeited their own right to life. Furthermore, they
believe, capital punishment is a just form of retribution (payback), expressing and
reinforcing the moral annoyance not only of the victim’s relatives but of law-abiding
citizens in general.

The opponents of capital punishment, following the writings of Cesare Beccaria (in
particular On Crimes and Punishments [1764]), argue that, by legitimizing the very
behaviour that the law seeks to repress (which is killing) capital punishment is
counterproductive (self-contradiction) in the moral message it conveys. In a way you
say do not kill but you yourself you call the offender.
 Moreover, they urge, when it is used for lesser crimes (treason, spying etc), capital
punishment is immoral because it is wholly disproportionate to the harm done. Capital
punishment also violates the condemned person’s right to life and is fundamentally inhuman
and degrading.

 Although death was prescribed for crimes in many sacred religious documents and
historically was practiced widely with the support of religious hierarchies, today there is no
agreement among religious faiths, or among denominations or sects within them, on the
morality of capital punishment.

 Beginning in the last half of the 20th century, increasing numbers of religious leaders—
particularly within Judaism and Roman Catholicism—campaigned against it. Capital
punishment was abolished by the state of Israel for all offenses except treason and crimes
against humanity, and Pope John Paul II condemned it as “cruel and unnecessary.”
Utilitarian arguments

 Supporters of capital punishment also claim that it has a uniquely

potent deterrent effect on potentially violent offenders for whom
the threat of imprisonment is not a sufficient restraint.

 Opponents, however, point to research that generally has

demonstrated that the death penalty is not a more effective
deterrent than the alternative sanction of life or long-term
imprisonment.
Practical arguments

 There are also disputes about whether capital punishment can be administered in a manner
consistent with justice. Those who support capital punishment believe that it is possible to
fashion laws and procedures that ensure that only those who are really deserving of death are
executed.

 The opponents argue that the past shows discrimination in the application of capital punishment.
In most cases the poor, ethnic and religious minorities and political aligned persons are often not
have access to good legal assistance. That racial and social prejudice motivates predominantly
white juries or political party aligned judges in capital cases to convict black and other non-white
defendants or opposition political members in disproportionate numbers, and that, because errors
are inevitable even in a well-run criminal justice system, some people will be executed for
crimes they did not commit.

 Finally, they argue that, because the appeals process for death sentences is prolonged, those
condemned to death are often cruelly forced to endure long periods of uncertainty about their