10.2307/3505178

Kantian and Utilitarian Ethics on Capital Punishment

“…Kant rejects any elasticity outright, which in a sense that critic has held on, revealed a thinker deeply enamored of his own principles. So notes the article by Merle (2009), which relates that "most of these mixed theories represent an effort by deontological, especially Kantian philosophers to break with the traditional view of the deontological, especially Kantian justification of punishment as a thoroughly retributivist theory. Indeed, it is with good reason that such a theory has been suspected of relying more on private morality than on principles of right" (Merle,311) .…”

Kant's Justification of the Death Penalty Reconsidered

“…But, as Merle points out, there is a problem here. Unless deterrence and retribution are the only two conceivable theories of punishment, Kant's argument does not show that the ius talionis is the only acceptable means of determining punishments (Merle 2000). It shows only that utilitarian considerations are unacceptable means of determining punishments.…”

“…If reducing a moral agent to thinghood does not violate the prohibition against treating people as mere means, it is hard to see what would. So the Kantian critic of capital punishment will argue that, since execution eliminates an end-in-itself, execution violates the moral law (Pugsley 1981;Schwarzschild 1985;Merle 2000).…”

“…But his vehement insistence on the necessity of execution strikes many readers as philosophically suspect. Critics argue that Kant's embrace of the death penalty is incompatible with, or at least not required by, the fundamental tenets of his moral and legal philosophy (Schwarzschild 1985;Merle 2000;Potter 2002;Hill 2003). These arguments typically employ one of two strategies.…”

“…The first is to deny that execution is required by retribution in even a prima facie sense; arguments along this line typically question the coherence of Kant's doctrine of the ius talionis (Sarver 1997). The second is to show that there are inviolable moral principles that render the death penalty illegitimate; this criticism typically appeals to the value of human dignity or the right to life (Radin 1980;Pugsley 1981;Schwarzschild 1985;Merle 2000;Potter 2002). There is a third strategy that could be used to criticize Kant, although it is not aimed at him specifically.…”