Should killers be killed? This is a question that has long been posed in countless philosophical and moral debates throughout history, and even in social contexts. So i thought why don't I pitch in.
First, let us present the point of view of people who think that capital punishment is too harsh a penalty for those who have committed the crime of killing someone else. Such critics claim that crime committers are human beings who are capable of changing in the course of a lifetime. Thus, by killing them, we are eliminating the chance that they already have for recognizing their mistakes, feeling guilty, changing their character, and improving their attitudes. We are even, according to this view, forbidding them from paying back their dues to society. Therefore, critics of capital punishment think that keeping these murderers alive and allowing them to evolve and become better human beings is the right path that should be lead.
On the other hand, supporters of capital punishment (particularly religious parties), believe that this is the best conduct that should be taken with people who willingly choose to end the lives of other people. From their point of view, capital punishment is not a Kantian end in itself. It rather has a utilitarian value in the sense that it will reduce crime. People will no longer kill other people fearing their own death.
I think it is true. Punishment in itself was created for a utilitarian use in the first place. We are not Gods to ultimately judge people and give them what they "deserve", and, if we believe in a global system of justice in this world, we shouldn't doubt that everyone will ultimately get what they deserve. This is why, i think, rules should be created for the better good of the whole society on the long run. Such a harsh punishment might seem a bit tough on a few humans who have committed such crimes, but it definitely has a more astound impact on societies throughout history.
First, let us present the point of view of people who think that capital punishment is too harsh a penalty for those who have committed the crime of killing someone else. Such critics claim that crime committers are human beings who are capable of changing in the course of a lifetime. Thus, by killing them, we are eliminating the chance that they already have for recognizing their mistakes, feeling guilty, changing their character, and improving their attitudes. We are even, according to this view, forbidding them from paying back their dues to society. Therefore, critics of capital punishment think that keeping these murderers alive and allowing them to evolve and become better human beings is the right path that should be lead.
On the other hand, supporters of capital punishment (particularly religious parties), believe that this is the best conduct that should be taken with people who willingly choose to end the lives of other people. From their point of view, capital punishment is not a Kantian end in itself. It rather has a utilitarian value in the sense that it will reduce crime. People will no longer kill other people fearing their own death.
I think it is true. Punishment in itself was created for a utilitarian use in the first place. We are not Gods to ultimately judge people and give them what they "deserve", and, if we believe in a global system of justice in this world, we shouldn't doubt that everyone will ultimately get what they deserve. This is why, i think, rules should be created for the better good of the whole society on the long run. Such a harsh punishment might seem a bit tough on a few humans who have committed such crimes, but it definitely has a more astound impact on societies throughout history.