Discuss the morality of capital punishment in the U.S
PHIL 102- Introduction to Ethics- M07 Discussion
Discuss the morality of capital punishment in the U.S., drawing support from one (or more) of the ethical approaches presented in Chapter 18. Do you feel that capital punishment is appropriate for certain crimes? How would consequentialists and non-consequentialists both approach the death penalty?
Capital Punishment is a must for countries that are small and can’t afford to keep prisoners in jail for life. Some states within the United States still carry out the death penalty but it is a waiting game. Where I am from there are certain crimes that judges don’t need to put them on the death role or give a time period for them to stay in prison because they will be dead within the week of stating in the cell. This only happens to multi rapists and molesters of any kind. It is scary when I think about some times. Prisons should have some fear when you think about it but in America, I find that people do not have fear of prisons. Which makes me ask myself, are prison within America are in such good conditions that they preferred to be there? People will murder, still, speed, and do other crimes but consequences for these actions should consistent and apple to all.
The class stated that abolitionists are those that wish to appeal to moral principles but receptionists are people that agree that consequences are needed. I do lean towards the receptionists and I believe that for every action there is a consequence for that action. It may not immediately happen, but it will take place eventually. Consequentialist a theory that right or of an action is based on consequence of that action. While none – consequentialist is a theory that right or wrong is based on the intrinsic of that action, but not the consequence.