Introduction
An attempt to provide an ethical theory is made in response to specific moral dilemmas. Although ethical theories aim to determine what moral standards are right, they do not directly address any particular queries (Gunn, 2018). The death penalty was, is, and most likely will be a contentious topic that is extremely important to mankind (Petrovici and Dean, 2020). To provide insight into the moral dilemma surrounding Capital Punishment, this paper compares and contrasts the Catholic Church’s deontology and utilitarianism perspectives, underpinned by the natural law and divine command theory.
Deontology of the Catholic Church
Deontology is one of the most popular schools of Catholic moral theology today. This method puts a lot of focus on what individuals conduct. By posing questions and making references to moral rules, standards, principles, and norms that are subsequently applied to specific circumstances, it aims to assess actions (Gunn, 2018). Deontological ethics holds that an action is moral if it is acceptable in and of itself and is carried out with the appropriate purpose. The act’s effects are unimportant for determining its morality.
Deontological theories agree that good outcomes are preferable, but they also believe that certain actions are morally good or bad, independent of the results. Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher who lived from 1724 to 1804, emphasized the need to see people as purposes in themselves since they are free, thinking creatures with ultimate worth (Gunn, 2018). However, very few deontological theories reduce ethical action to mindless rule compliance. While Kant contends that lying is always bad even when it saves another person’s life, he also holds that decent conduct is one carried out out of good intent or honor for the moral code. The divine command idea, as opposed to the natural law, serves as the foundation for the deontological approach. Some interpretations of divine command ethics hold that the primary justifications for behavior are based purely on God’s will in providing moral instructions (Jung, 2020). As a result, the imposition of moral responsibility is wholly heteronomous in that it is not predicated on human acceptance or comprehension.
Utilitarianism
The utilitarian viewpoint, which contends that all circumstances necessitate a certain level of rationality concerning action, can be contrasted with the notion of deontology. Kant’s moral assumptions are thrown into question as a result, and John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham come to the forefront of the discussion. Bentham, who bases his arguments on the utility from a utilitarian standpoint, rejects the straightforward idea that there are particular definite inherent rights to which all men are granted and should, as a consequence, be compensated by the dignity of their living (Udoudom, Bassey, Okpe and Adie, 2019). “Pain” and “pleasure” are two of utilitarianism’s main ideas and phrases. These are the basic building blocks of both personal and collective happiness, whose priorities must be determined by the maximization of the happiness of the biggest possible proportion.
A consequentialist moral philosophy refers to the school of utilitarianism. One needs to assess the validity based on the results of employing those deceitful techniques. In particular, when determining what to do, it is crucial to compare the positive results with the adverse outcomes (Braswell, McCarthy, and McCarthy, 2017). The consequentialist principle, which holds that the goodness or badness of the outcomes of an action determines its truth or falsity, is one of the three fundamental tenets of utilitarian ethics. The second is the hedonist principle, which holds that the only things that are good in and of themselves are pleasure and misery, respectively (Colosi, 2020). The principle of extent, which also considers the number of persons impacted by the activity, is the last one.
In contrast to deontology, this viewpoint contends that the discovery of logical, universal principles controlling nature could only be made by observation and experimentation. Therefore, the depiction of empirical reality should not be influenced by religious or existential theorizing, as the divine command theory suggests. Society’s moral responsibilities that are discernible without the assistance of special revelation are referred to as “natural law.” It is natural since it is integrated into the foundation of the world, encompassing human psychology and structure, and it is a rationale for the general welfare that is impartial and ethically obligatory.
Capital Punishment
Because the evidence on the deterrent effect of the death penalty is ambiguous, it needs to be reviewed from an ethical and philosophical standpoint in addition to a legal one. A significant factor raising concerns about the morality of the death sentence is attributed to judicial system bias that seems to directly link racial and socioeconomic preconceptions to the consideration of morality (Udoudom, Bassey, Okpe, and Adie, 2019). With considerable confidence, every judicial evaluation of the death penalty includes an evaluation of ethical validity. However, the continued existence of legitimate debate over whether the death penalty is morally acceptable supports jurisprudence that is focused on developing a limited compromise around an emerging norm (Alexander and Ferzan, 2019). Instead, it should be considered as one norm that pursues the prevailing views on hotly debated philosophical theories.
According to utilitarianism, the death sentence may be appropriate if conclusive evidence shows that a person committed aggravated murder and there is no way to mitigate their culpability or demonstrate that they could be deserving of life in the situation. This implies that the offender has displayed behaviors that are typical of an unapologetic reprobate, that the offense was not the result of mental impairment or a change in the offender’s nature, and that this establishes the offender’s unfitness for further life (Shenge and Francis, 2020). As a result, it is challenging to defend the death sentence from a utilitarian perspective.
The divine command theory contends that the death penalty is immoral. According to the divine command idea, murder is prohibited since life is sacrosanct (Rae, 2018). Based on this idea, moral behavior is proper because God forbids it. This idea is controversial because it suggests that morality is arbitrary and enigmatic and that it gives incorrect justifications for moral standards. We require an independent criterion of goodness and evil to resolve this issue. The command described above is unaffected by conventional ethics, even if it may create a theoretical logical fallacy scenario. Following the divine commandment hypothesis, taking someone’s life is morally wrong irrespective of his or her place in society, whether they are a murderer or not, guilty or not, or criminal or not. Hence, no government has authority over a human’s life.
Conclusion
The world exists as a real, divinely determined reality only as a result of potential, but not required, intervention on God’s part. God may have created a different moral code and a different world structure. Laws only have to sway since they are put into effect by acknowledging the holy intent. In the framework of his ordinate authority, God is constrained by the institutions and rules of this world via his choice (Cross and Paasch, 2021). The same truths and rules cannot operate in our universe simultaneously in two different respects. For instance, the moral objection to the death penalty might not hold or might not apply equally in a comparable way. Due to this reason, when addressing the moral conundrum of capital punishment, natural law seems to be a more reasonable argument.
Reference List
Alexander, L. and Ferzan, K. (2019) ‘The Palgrave handbook of applied ethics and the criminal law’, Palgrave Macmillan, 2(3), pp. 241-250.
Braswell, M., McCarthy, B. and McCarthy, B. (2017) Justice, crime, and ethics. 9th ed. Routledge.
Colosi, P. (2020) ‘Christian personalism versus utilitarianism: An analysis of their approaches to love and suffering’, The Linacre Quarterly, 87(4), pp. 425-437.
Cross, R. and Paasch, J. (2021) The Routledge companion to medieval philosophy. Routledge.
Gunn, A. (2018) Environmental ethics for engineers. Milton: CRC Press.
Jung, W. (2020) ‘Divine command, natural law, and redemption in Calvin’s thought’, Theology Today, 77(3), pp. 323-334.
Petrovici, I. and Dean, I. (2020) ‘Capital punishment between suppression of life and ethical justification’, Postmodern Openings, 11(4), pp. 309-322.
Rae, S., (2018) Moral choices: An introduction to ethics. 4th ed. Zondervan.
Shenge, M. and Francis, T. (2020) ‘Capital punishment: An ethical critique of JS Mill’s utilitarian perspective’, Journal of African Studies and Sustainable Development, 3(2), pp. 15-28.
Udoudom, M., Bassey, S., Okpe, O. and Adie, T. (2019) ‘Kantian and utilitarian ethics on capital punishment’, Budapest International Research and Critics Institute (BIRCI-Journal): Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(2), pp. 28-35.