Why does Kant pursue a purely retributive view of capital punishment against the utilitarian?
According to utilitarianism and its view on punishment, punishing criminals does not imply giving them what they deserve by exacting revenge or retribution to them. It further asserts that inflicting suffering on the criminals without compensating gain in happiness is very unethical and against the societal requirements (Tunick p. 29 – 38). This view on punishment has reasons for punishing criminals, which include preventing the wrong doers from causing further harm, discouraging potential offenders, satisfying the society and reforming or educating these wrong doers with an aim of making them more productive in the society.
However according to Kant, the only legitimate purpose of punishing criminals is giving them what they deserve. He argues that that punishing these criminals in order to promote happiness violates the categorical imperative by treating them as mere means to an end. In the above view, Kant disputes the justifications of the utilitarian view and considers them unethical too (Tunick 29 – 38). In his opinion, there are two principles that should be considered while administering punishment. First, he believes that people should be punished for committing crimes and not for any other reason, as is the case with utilitarianism. Secondly, he believes that punishment should be given proportionally to the crime committed; light offenders should be given lighter punishments as opposed to bigger offences.
Kant supported capital punishment for murderers. He associates criminal actions with maxims. These maxims endorse causing harm or violation of autonomy of others and assuming these as universal law. According to Kant, we ought to treat others as ends and not as means. Therefore, by giving murder criminals capital punishment, it means we are treating them just the same way they believe others ought to be treated. Additionally, giving such punishments does not imply that the offenders are being punished for the benefit of the society or the punishers, but because it is in accordance with his actions.
The Kantian principle regarding treating people as ends in themselves is consistent with the capital punishment since according to his principle, people should not be punished for satisfying the society, but according to the magnitude of their offences. Ethically, people would not wish to murder their fellow human beings. Assuming that these people acted autonomously and using their own rationality, and that they were morally upright at the time of committing such offences, it would be appropriate to give the capital punishment.
Do an anthropocentric or humanistic ethics such as Kant's provide an adequate basis for obligations to animals and the environment?
In my opinion, all the three approaches to environmental have provisions that are consistent with the humanistic ethics such as Kant’s principle. Most of these approaches assert that the interests of human beings determine the obligations regarding the environment. The human welfare greatly depends on the edible food, breathable air, and drinkable water. From this assertion, it is evident that polluting the environment to the extent of damaging air, water and land is considered unethical since it interferes with the welfare of both human beings and animals.
These animals and plants are considered non-rational beings and do not belong to the same moral category as human beings. Nevertheless, these environmental principles do not approve of mass destruction of these plants and animals since human being depend on them in many ways for their survival. Therefore, it is the duty of these human beings to protect them to the extent that they depend on them. Both plants and animals also need clean water, therefore, by protecting the environment, they would benefit from these human interventions and attention to environmental ethics. However, environmental preservation strategies do not provide that they take precedence over human life and interest.
Are there compelling ethical reasons for preferring the humanistic or personalist framework to sentientism (utilitarianism) and ecocentrism?
In my opinion, the only reason for preferring the humanistic framework to the latter is that it prescribes the goods and evils that the humans do or avoid only happen to them. However, sentientism and ecocentrism, which consider these goods and evils to occur also to other forms of life other than the human beings (Cragg, Greenbaum, & Wellington p.58). The humanistic framework provides for the protection of human interest, thereby conserving the environment. For instance, in controlling pollution and dangerous emissions from factories, the major focus is on protecting human life. However, this control also focuses on protecting the natural environmental compositions such as plants and animals, which implies that nature is also protected while protecting human interest, which should prevail according to the humanistic principle.
The reason I find this reason compelling is the fact that while preserving the environment, human life should be taken into consideration and should be the most important reason for these actions (Cragg, Greenbaum, & Wellington p.58). Humanistic ethics are very important in the observation of environmental ethics since the human being coexists with his environment. While ensuring his survival, human being would always wish to protect the environmental resources from which he gains comfort.
Work Cited:
Cragg Wesley, Greenbaum, & Wellington Allan Alex. Canadian Issues in Environmental Ethics. Peterborough: Broadview Press, 1997. Print.
Tunick Mark. Practices and Principles: Approaches to Ethical and Legal Judgment:
Princeton paperbacks. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000. Print.
