Even though, the justification of undertaking action of punishing an eye for an eye is faced by moral reasons, the intention should be not only legally but also morally justifiable. As an emotional response, to morally unjust acts, exact retribution advocates for the undertaking of punishments that match the crime committed against another individual. Nonetheless, the infliction of punishment in today’s society remains as morally justified right based on the decisions undertaken depending on the justification, rationale and nature of punishment. In addition, it is essential for rules that guide punishments to control the existence of different kinds of behavior as based in laws and regulations that seek to justify the moral justifications behind punishments (Koritansky 117). More considerably, it remains decisive to undertake an eye for an eye punishment under the legal system as long as an individual violates certain rules and laws before the administration of punishment. More significantly, there is a need to examine the inherent morality of punishment undertaken rather than just the legal reasons behind the action.
More than often, several crimes seem obvious to deserve the punishment of different measures depending on the impact of wrongdoing. Nonetheless, the use of fair and equitable rule for different rules and regulation in approaching punishment as a way of rectifying the moral behavior of individuals serves as a means of maintaining social order. Even though, there exists different attributes of cultural and religious diversity perspective based on the collection of true propositions on moral justifications of punishments it is relevant to dignify human life. Nonetheless, there remains a lot of disagreement on the moral justifications in given practice, as a judgment seems to deter the existence of certain practices because it differs from an individual perspective (Braswell, McCarthy and McCarthy 176). Considerably, there exists a notion based on members of society beliefs and sentiments based on the conscience collective measure of punishment as an act of administering correctional action. As a result, it remains morally justifiable to view legal punishments on wrong doings including capital punishments as a conscience collective action against criminal acts that are set to indicate punitive reaction against morally unjust acts in the society.
In most cases, the judgments acts condemning wrongful conduct are opinions based on what is considered true to different individuals. More so, gaining an objective value depends on morality judgment based on empathy, sentiment feelings and benevolence. Nonetheless, it is essential to understand Kant’s theory of punishment and justice as a means of achieving retribution in morally unjust cases. As a result, it is moral justifiable for criminals to be punished because most of the crime committed in the society deserve retribution in an equal measure fitting the crime (Koritansky 117). More significantly, Kant attempts to show an exact retribution as a way in which society has an obligation to castigate criminals for their evil actions. More so, criminals undertaking criminal activities as rational beings deserve to be punished as a form of intent action to take action towards an individual as he acted towards others wrongfully as it gives advocacy of rational decision.
More considerably, the moral justification in support for capital and corrective punishment remain as a separate issue because the legal justification is based on the rule and law that provide for the infliction of punishment based on precedent rulings. Nonetheless, social moral justification indicates that severe punishment for any rational person including the pain of serving long-term imprisonment can deter crime. As a way of administering social justice for the offended parties, it remains justifiable to carry out equal punishment upon retribution that is articulated by religious teachings (Harman 10). More considerably, when someone takes someone else life through murder it is clear that it triggers lack of balance of justice in the society. As a result, a just ruling ensures that balance is restored to create a sense of moral justification in the society as a way of preventing the rule of violence. Noticeably, legal action that include either taking the murderer's life of life imprisonment is set to restore balance as the act allows society to show convincingly to other people that murder is an intolerable crime, which consequently punished.
In conclusion, it is morally justifiable for advocacy of an exact retribution for morally unjust acts in both the legally and social set up. More than often, those inflicted from criminal acts find punishments that attempt to show an exact retribution as a just way to punish criminals for their evil actions. Indeed, the infliction of punishment in today’s society remains as morally justified right based on the decisions undertaken depending on the justification, rationale and nature of punishment.
Works Cited
Braswell Michael, McCarthy, Belinda & McCarthy, Bernard. Justice, crime, and ethics.
Amsterdam Boston: Elsevier, 2012.
Harman, Gilbert. Moral Relativism Defended. The Philosophical Review, 1975, 84 (1): 3-22
Koritansky, Peter. The philosophy of punishment and the history of political thought. Columbia
Mo. London: University of Missouri Press, 2011. Print.
.
