Moral Justification of Capital Punishment Using Utilitarian, Deontological, and Virtue Ethics Moral Theories

Capital punishment (used interchangeably with death penalty in this paper) refers to the process of legally killing someone as a punishment for a crime they have been found guilty of by a court of law. Ideally, this punishment is reserved for serious crimes such as felony murder, aggravated murder, or contracted killing, but other crimes, such as treason, are also punished using capital punishment. Capital punishment is not popular among all people, with ethical and humanitarian concerns about the sentence frequently raised by those opposed to it. On the other hand, there is a pro-capital punishment population who believe that death is the best deterrence measure against crimes such as murder and aggravated assault. While both sides of the debate raise pertinent issues about the pros and cons of capital punishment, the best way of analyzing the ethicality of the sentence is by using moral theories. Subsequently, this essay assesses the ethical justification of the death penalty through the lens of utilitarian, deontological, and virtue ethics theories.

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is one of the most cited ethical theories in the world, given its propensity for doing good for the overall good. Abumere (2019) defines utilitarianism as a consequentialist moral theory where the morality of an action is determined by its outcomes, with morally right actions having positive consequences that make more people happy, while morally wrong actions have negative consequences and harm more people. Essentially, an action that leads to happiness for more people than those it harms is considered morally right and is to be encouraged, while the action that leads to general unhappiness and pain is deemed immoral and condemned. As such, if a course of action does not increase net utility or leads to a reduction of maximum goodness, it is shunned since more people suffer than those who benefit. 

Based on this analogy of utilitarianism, it is evident that capital punishment is morally justifiable because more people will be happier than those whose lives will be spared. The only people who are likely to be unhappy because a criminal has been persecuted are going to be himself, his family, and close friends. On the other hand, the entire community will be grateful that an individual who violated societal norms and probably made their lives impossible is no longer a threat. Indeed, more parents are going to be relieved that a pedophile has been sentenced to death since the safety of their children is assured. Based on this analysis, a utilitarian will justify capital punishment as morally upright. 

Deontology

Deontology ethics is a school of thought that an action is strictly morally good because of its characteristics, not because of its outcomes. According to Tseng and Wang (2021), the theory was advanced by Immanuel Kant, who advised that an individual has duties towards others, a moral obligation to do what is right regardless of the outcomes such action or inaction would cause. Unlike utilitarianism, the process of taking an action and the nature of the said action are the sole determinants of morality, not its consequences (Tseng & Wang, 2021). As such, people are expected to abide by societal norms, including rules such as do not kill and do not steal, among others, that enable peaceful coexistence amongst societal members. 

It is evident from this explanation that capital punishment is to be treated as inherently immoral by a deontologist. Kantianism expressly states that all actions must abide by the moral obligation an individual owes to society. Therefore, if society demands individuals not to kill one another, there is no justification for taking a person's life, regardless of the legal means used to arrive at that decision. Furthermore, under deontology, an individual is accorded rights such as autonomy and rationality, which one could argue as the means to give the sentenced person a chance to reform their ways. The only time capital punishment would be allowable in deontology is if the death penalty has been accepted as the universal moral law in the given society. 

Virtue Ethics

Virtue ethics is another interesting moral theory that can be used to either support or defend the death penalty. Virtue ethicists assert that an individual's good character traits beget morally right actions, and as such, an individual should aim to cultivate a desirable character through self-perfection and self-reflection (Smith, 2021). Furthermore, a person is expected to have mannerisms that will restore harmony and order in a society by having established social and moral norms. By living a virtuous life, an individual could be called upon to make the right decisions regardless of the situation they found themselves in. 

In the case of the death penalty, one of the virtues being examined here is justice. In a just society, people get their due, are punished for their vices, and are rewarded for their virtues. Subsequently, an individual who breaks the law and warrants the death penalty should be punished accordingly as long as justice is served fairly and proportionately to their crime. However, if capital punishment is deemed to be excessive, then severe injustice is committed, and the action is morally wrong. That said, the criminal who is supposed to face the death penalty should also be given room for moral growth. Therefore, the morality of capital punishment is based on the principles of proportionality, fairness, and potential for moral development. For instance, a virtue ethicist would argue for the forgiveness of a first-time offender with the potential to reform, but encourage persecuting a repeat offender. 

Conclusion

Ultimately, the morality of capital punishment is highly dependent on the lens through which an individual analyzes the issue. A utilitarian moral theorist will state that criminals should be persecuted if their death will have better net utility than if they were allowed to live. On the other hand, Kantianism states that the only time it is allowed to execute a criminal is if the society's moral code allows it; otherwise, the deed is morally wrong because it involves killing, an act that goes against established societal values and norms. Lastly, a virtue ethicist will only defend the death penalty if executing the criminal aligns with the principles of justice, proportionality, and moral growth potential. This means that the morality of capital punishment in virtue ethics is conditional.