The theories that most apply to
the case of capital punishment are the theories of right action. How do we know
what is morally right to do with murderers, or any criminals for that matter?
Are there only specific cases where the death penalty is just or are all cases
morally wrong? Mill says that the right action to take in any situation would
be the best of all possible options. Under his theory, the best option is the
one that promotes the most pleasure or reduces the most pain. He places
emphasis on a sense of collective
happiness as opposed to individual happiness.
Under his theory of right action, the morally wrong act to take is not just the
one that creates the least amount of happiness or decreases the least amount of
pain, but any option that is not the best of all possible options. Therefore,
when making any decision, you need to tally up the amount of pleasure or pain
associated with each option. For example, if you were in charge of choosing a
television show for your family to watch, the right show to watch would be the
one that made your family as a whole the happiest. While this is a somewhat
inane example, it is useful the overall happiness is easily quantified. When
applying Mill’s theory to more important decisions, the option that increases
collective happiness or decreases collective pain the most may involve someone
losing their life. If my constraint were added to Mill’s theory, then the right
action to take would be the one that created the most pleasure or reduced the
most pain without infringing upon someone’s right to his or her own life.
However, I fundamentally disagree with Mill’s hedonistic theory on a whole
because it discourages things that I believe have value. Altruism, for example,
is noble and valuable even in cases where the outcome may not produce the most
happiness of all options. Since I disagree with Mill’s idea of value, then I
must also disagree with his theory of right action. Kant’s theory of right
action, despite the fact that his own opinions on capital punishment seem to
not reflect it, seems to be readily compatible with my constraint. He says that
actions must be done under a categorical imperative in so much as they always
treat other people as an end in themselves and that that they treat them not
just as a means to an end.
Treating someone as an end is connected with duty.
If you are treating someone as an end, then it is your duty to help him or her
achieve a rational goal. The fact that they will it is enough reason for you to
be morally obliged to help them do it. Also, Kant says you must not treat
someone merely as a means to an end. Treating someone merely as a means does
not show a good will because it involves using someone completely. If I were to
befriend a young lady to get a taste of her ice cream cone, then I am treating
her merely as a means to my end of eating ice cream. The sense of humanity in
this theory fits with the idea that the individual right to life is a
fundamental right, something that Mill overlooks completely. I understand
Kant’s theory to say that the death penalty would be treating someone merely as
a means. Life is valuable so a rational person would strive to keep it. To
treat someone as an end would be to help them retain their life. If someone is
an end in themselves, then everyone who acts rightly under moral law should
respect their right to life. Subjecting someone to the death penalty is
treating them simply as a means to placate society, gain retribution for the
family of the victim(s), and rid the public of a possible repeat felon. Thus,
as a believer in Kant’s theories, I say that capital punishment is never the
morally right action.