Was Kant an extreme retributivist on punishment?
Although Kant is often regarded an extreme retributivist regarding judicial punishment, the need to deter crime also plays a significant role in his theory of criminal law. Kant's special way of combining deterrence and retribution, however, must be distinguished from others that are less plausible.
Does Kant have a special way of combining deterrence and retribution?
Kant's special way of combining deterrence and retribution, however, must be distinguished from others that are less plausible.
Can the state involuntarily medicate incompetent capital prisoners?
Where the state seeks involuntarily medication of an incompetent capital prisoner, there is not and cannot be a claim that the forced medication rests on medical necessity or even prison safety.
Do prisoners have a right to refuse treatment?
Within prison walls the rights of the state must be balanced with the prisoner's right to refuse treatment.
How would Kant approach the death penalty?
Kant exemplifies a pure retributivism about capital punishment: murderers must die for their offense, social consequences are wholly irrelevant, and the basis for linking the death penalty to the crime is “the Law of Retribution,” the ancient maxim, lex talionis, rooted in “the principle of equality.”
What are the 2 exceptions that Kant accepts to giving the death penalty for murder?
First, he believes it treats criminals as mere means to others' good; Kant's Categorical Imperative forbids this. Second, the Utilitarian theory could, possibly, justify punishing an innocent person because of the good it might bring to society.
What is Kant's justification of punishment?
SHARON BYRD. KANT'S THEORY OF PUNISHMENT: DETERRENCE IN ITS THREAT, RETRIBUTION. IN ITS EXECUTION.
What ethical theory is against the death penalty?
This is called the double effect principle. Deontologist view capital punishment as being wrong by its nature, a violation of the right to life, which is a universal law for them. They also look at the inhumane ways that capital punishment is carried out.
Which ethical theory could allow an innocent person to be executed if the execution would benefit society?
But deterrence theories could allow executing the innocent: if executing an innocent person would prevent future murders and authorities could keep her innocence secret, the benefits would plausibly outweigh the costs and deterrence theories would support killing her.
What is Kant main philosophy?
His moral philosophy is a philosophy of freedom. Without human freedom, thought Kant, moral appraisal and moral responsibility would be impossible. Kant believes that if a person could not act otherwise, then his or her act can have no moral worth.
Why did Kant believe criminals should be punished?
Kant thought that criminal punishments should be designed to match the victim's empirically discernible losses in degree and kind, except when this would be impossible or degrading; for courts cannot measure the ultimate moral desert of criminals.
What is justification for punishment?
There are five main underlying justifications of criminal punishment considered briefly here: retribution; incapacitation; deterrence; rehabilitation and reparation.
How is Kantian ethics grounded in a concept of moral equality?
How is Kantian ethics grounded in a concept of moral equality? It applies universally to all rational and autonomous persons. Kant would not want us to violate the rights of some in order to do our duty to others.
Does deontological ethics Support death penalty Why or why not?
For deontologists, a killing is a wrong under most circumstances, and its wrongness does not depend on its consequences or its effects on overall welfare. Many deontologists (of course not all) believe that capital punishment counts as a moral wrong.
Is death penalty morally justified?
Yet support for the death penalty is strongly associated with a belief that when someone commits murder, the death penalty is morally justified. Among the public overall, 64% say the death penalty is morally justified in cases of murder, while 33% say it is not justified.
What is Kantian ethics and utilitarianism?
Definition. Kantianism is a moral philosophy introduced by Immanuel Kant that emphasizes that morality of an action/decision is not determined by its consequences but by the motivation of the doer whereas Utilitarianism is a moral philosophy introduced by Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, Henry Sidgwick, etc.
Mark D. White
The prisoners' dilemma game stands as a seminal case of the conflict between individual and collective rationality. Some scholars have suggested that Kantian duty-based ethics can prevent the suboptimal outcomes associated with the game.
Abstract
The prisoners' dilemma game stands as a seminal case of the conflict between individual and collective rationality. Some scholars have suggested that Kantian duty-based ethics can prevent the suboptimal outcomes associated with the game.
What did Kant think of punishment?
Kant thought that criminal punishments should be designed to match the victim's empirically discernible losses in degree and kind, except when this would be impossible or degrading; for courts cannot measure the ultimate moral desert of criminals.
What is Kant's theory of retribution?
Kant's special way of combining deterrence and retribution, however, must be distinguished from others that are less plausible.
Is punishment a disincentive?
Arguably, Kant's justification of the practice of punishment is not deeply retributive, but punishment is also not a mere disincentive in a ‘price’ system of social control.
Why is it that most people find the act of kicking a dog worse than, for example, killing a cow and eating it?
Please note that I’m not a vegan or a vegetarian and I don’t have “an agenda”.
I love watching Philosophers debate. Can anyone recommend me some of their favourite debates?
I am trying to learn better discourse skills, and I think interlocution is a perfect place to start. I want to be better at articulating my thoughts in an argument, so I think watching two people improvising their points is a perfect place to start.
I have tried multiple times to get into philosophy, but every time I start a new book I can't understand it because the words used are to big for me to understand. What should I do?
I've been interested in the idea of philosophy for a while but how am I meant to start if I can't even read any of the books? I tried just looking up every word I didn't understand but then I end up losing concentration and forget what they're talking about.
How does one use Ockham's Razor properly?
I was recently having a discussion/lighthearted debate with some friends, and I argued (by Ockham's razor) that my position was more likely to be correct because it involved fewer assumptions and variables.
What do Kierkegaard and Hegel mean by infinite absolute negativity?
I was reading Kierkegaard’s “The Concept of Irony: With Continual Reference to Socrates” and couldn’t find any sources to unpack the Hegelian definition of irony. Can anyone explain it to me like I’m five?
When did the Supreme Court issue the decision to force mentally ill people to take psychotropic medication?
In the early 1990s, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two opinions addressing the issue of when, and under what circumstances, mentally ill individuals within the criminal justice system may be forced to take psychotropic medication, either as part of a medical treatment plan or to restore competency to stand trial. In the 1990 case of Washington v.
What is a liberty interest in avoiding the forced administration of drugs?
1. If a prisoner has a liberty interest in avoiding the forced administration of drugs, violation of that interest occurs at the moment medication is forced upon the prisoner-and does not depend on the classification or efficacy of the medication in question, or its side effects. 2.
What is the purpose of the forced medication case?
As the Court explained in Harper, "the purpose of the drugs is to alter the chemical balance in a patient's brain, leading to changes, intended to be beneficial, in his or her cognitive processes." But, the Court went on to explain, the side effects to these drugs can be fatal and include a variety of motor control disorders, some treatable and some permanently disabling. The United States and the APA as amici in Sell did not concede this point but argued that medical research in the 1990s-i.e., drugs created after Harper and Riggins were decided-created a new class of antipsychotic medications that have fewer side effects. Even assuming this argument is factually true, it is unclear whether it is legally relevant, as the following points demonstrate:
What did the APA argue in Sell?
The United States and the APA as amici in Sell did not concede this point but argued that medical research in the 1990s-i.e., drugs created after Harper and Riggins were decided-created a new class of antipsychotic medications that have fewer side effects.
What is the question of constitutional balance?
Sell also presents issues regarding the status of the prisoner the state seeks to medicate and, assuming his status is relevant, the nature of the charges against him . Sell is awaiting trial for insurance fraud-a nonviolent felony.
Is forced medication medically appropriate?
Showings by the state that forced medication is medically or penologically appropriate is only part of the equation; the request also is prompted by the state's wish to bring about a legal proceeding.
Can a state force a prisoner to take medication?
Where the state seeks involuntarily medication of an incompetent capital prisoner, there is not and cannot be a claim that the forced medication rests on medical necessity or even prison safety. In such cases the state argues simply that its rights to carry out a criminal sentence outweigh any rights of the mentally ill individual to refuse treatment. Such cases are grisly and, for those who principally oppose the death penalty, underscore virtually every aspect of what is wrong with the American capital punishment system.