Philosophy - Education Scotland

8WLOLWDULDQLVP DQG STUDENT INFORMATION
3XQLVKPHQW

Capital Punishment FOR or AGAINST?

Looking at the consequences of capital punishment, there are different
possibilities for Utilitarians.

Jonathan Glover points out that some of the possible bad consequences
have to be taken into account. The number of lives saved through deterring
others might not be more than the number of executions. Consider the pain of
the criminal waiting to be executed, their family who know their loved one will
be killed versus the family of the victim who only had to find out later. There is
the possibility of executing an innocent person, the fact that this might lower
the value we put on human life.

J S Mill argued for Capital Punishment in a speech to Parliament in 1868. The
speech was entitled ‘In Favour of Capital Punishment’ and the main points
were

• It should only be for those who will not be reformed by any other
punishment.

• It is more humane to the prisoner – they suffer and lose all hope in prison
and this doesn’t even deter others.

• Capital Punishment will not deter hardened criminals but it might deter
others.

• We will not devalue human life by executing people – we devalue life by
inflicting suffering through prison which does not deter others properly and
will not reform some criminals.

• An innocent person being executed is rare and the threat of the death
penalty will make the courts even stricter about the evidence they need.

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 48

8WLOLWDULDQLVP DQG STUDENT INFORMATION
3XQLVKPHQW

A Satisfactory view?

STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES

Fits in with common feelings. Seems to allow for punishing
The idea that we have to look at the innocent.
what will be best for everyone after Utilitarians say that punishment is
something horrible like a crime fits chiefly to deter others and they
in with what people want. Most focus totally on the consequences
people want something good to to see whether an act is good.
come from bad situations. This seems to make it possible
Jonathan Glover in ‘Causing Death that there could be a situation
and Saving Lives’ says that where the best consequences will
punishment has to be more than just come from punishing someone
pointless suffering, it has to be trying who is innocent.
to make something positive come John Rawls criticises
out in the end. Utilitarianism because it could
justify punishing the innocent.
It is a practical theory.
Punishment could be very
There are lots of categories of crimes harsh or very light; it all
and within each category there are depends on the consequences.
lots of different circumstances. Because the whole aim of
Utilitarianism allows these punishment looks to the
circumstances to be reflected in the consequences, sentences could
punishment. Punishment does not differ widely in each case if that
have to be given just because a crime was what the circumstances
was committed. In some cases, it required. If punishing someone
might be better not to punish really harshly would set an
someone e.g. in the case of the example and really deter others
abused wife who uses violence. then a Utilitarian may have to
allow this e.g. really long jail
Utilitarianism also recognises that term for not paying for a parking
criminals cannot all just be got rid space. Or if punishing someone
of. We can’t lock them all up and does not seem to benefit society,
throw away the key. Criminals do should criminals get away with it
come back into society and it makes e.g. not paying for a parking
sense to try and make sure that they space. This doesn’t seem fair.
become better people when they do.
Utilitarianism recognises this by
supporting the idea of reform.

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 49

.DQWLDQ (WKLFV DQG STUDENT INFORMATION
3XQLVKPHQW

Kant’s theory of punishment is retributive. This is the idea that
the criminal has taken something unfairly from society and justice
demands that they should suffer for it. This kind of theory sees
criminals as parasites on society – who want to share in the good
things
of society but are not willing to abide by the rules we need to keep society going.

This theory says that the only reason necessary for punishment is that the person
actually committed the crime. It also says that the punishment should fit the crime. (It
should be an eye for an eye, not two eyes and an arm!).

In ‘The Critique of Practical Reason’ Kant talks about punishment. He says ….

When someone who delights in annoying and vexing
peace loving folk receives at last a right good beating,
it is certainly an ill, but everyone approves of it and
considers it as a good in itself, even if nothing further
results from it.

If you strike another
you strike yourself; if
you kill another you
kill yourself.

From the quote you can see that Kant is FOR capital punishment . He believed that
criminals were only to be punished because they deserved it, If you killed, you
deserve to be killed. It also meant that he thought every sentence of capital
punishment had to be carried out for justice to be done. Kant gives an example of an
island community which has decided to split up and go and live elsewhere. Kant said
that before they left, it was their duty to execute every last murderer.

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 50

.DQWLDQ (WKLFV DQG STUDENT INFORMATION
3XQLVKPHQW

Where does Kant’s view come from?

The second part of the Categorical Imperative:

Treat people as ends not means

* Remember Kant believed that humans have an intrinsic worth. Remember also that
he believed this because he thought that we were rational beings – beings that could
make our own decisions by using our reason.

• If you put criminals in prison for the good of society - you are, according to Kant,
using them as a means to an end, you are using them being in prison as a way to
make society safer.

• Trying to rehabilitate and reform criminals is also treating them as means rather
than as ends in themselves because you are not letting these people be their true
selves. You are trying to mould them into the way society wants them to be.

This explains Kant’s view of what the limits of punishment should be but it doesn’t
explain why he thinks any kind of punishment is a good idea in the first place .

How is punishing How can executing
someone people be treating
respecting them as them with respect?
people?

Remember what we said above that, for Kant, to treat someone as a means rather than
as an end is to treat them as a rational being. This means treating them as people who
are responsible for their own actions.
If you are responsible for your actions, you can be held accountable for them – you
can be praised or blamed for them.
Punishment is the way to make sure people are held accountable for their actions.

Karl Marx liked Kant’s ideas. He said ‘ There is only one theory of
punishment which is compatible with human dignity and that is the
theory of Kant’ (1853)

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 51

.DQWLDQ (WKLFV DQG STUDENT INFORMATION
3XQLVKPHQW

A Satisfactory view? WEAKNESSES

STRENGTHS It is a very Harsh Theory to follow.
The ideas that we only need to pay
Fits in with common feelings of attention to the fact criminals
what justice is DESERVE to be punished means that
The idea that criminals DESERVE there are no exceptions to the rule.
to be punished and that only people We see this in Kant’s island example
who have actually committed crimes where all the criminals on death row
should be punished, fits in with how have to be executed before the
people feel. community splits up. Even an 80 year
It is common to hear victims of old dying of cancer anyway would have
crime saying things like ‘ They only to be executed.
got what they deserved’ when they It also means that mitigating
hear the punishment given to the circumstances cannot be taken into
criminal. account either. If a wife kills after she
Also people do not like to hear of has been subject to years of abuse for
people being in prison for things example, this does not matter, she has
they didn’t do. If they didn’t mind still killed. John Rawls says that Kant's
this, we would not need the huge theory may allow too much punishment
amount of evidence to convict being given out.
people which we need now.
James Rachels in ‘Moral Doesn’t look to what will happen in
Philosophy’ says that Kant has a the future.
view of punishment which is a very This theory looks backward and only
common view. considers the act and what punishment
fits with the crime. Kant’s theory does
Gives people responsibility for not take account of what will happen in
their actions. the future. He does not take account of
the consequences of the punishment - it
On the whole people believe that does not matter whether it deters
you can and do control your actions. criminals or not, it does not matter
Kant’s ideas about punishment treats whether it will actually help a criminal
people with respect by recognising reform himself or whether it will
that they are in control of what they damage a criminal and lead him or her
do. If they want to say they are in to commit worse crimes.
control of what they do, they have to
take responsibility for what they do.
This is why criminals deserve to be
punished.
Karl Marx (in notes on Kant and
Punishment) says Kant treats people

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 52

3XQLVKPHQW STUDENT INFORMATION

Utilitarian and Kantian Ethics

7KH\ UHDOO\ GRQ·W OLNH HDFK RWKHU·V YLHZV RQ
SXQLVKPHQW

7KH RQO\ DLP RI SXQLVKPHQW WKDW 8WLOLWDULDQV GRQ·W

DJUHH ZLWK LV 5(75,%87,21 -RVHSK *UFLF VD\V WKDW

8WLOLWDULDQV VHH WKH LGHD RI UHWULEXWLRQ DV DQ LUUDWLRQDO
QHHG IRU UHYHQJH ZKLFK LQFUHDVHV RYHUDOO VXIIHULQJ

.DQW GLGQ·W WKLQN PXFK RI WKH 8WLOLWDULDQ YLHZ HLWKHU ,Q

¶7KH 3KLORVRSK\ RI /DZ· .DQW VD\V

‘Woe to him who creeps through the
serpent windings of Utilitarianism to
discover some advantage that may
discharge him from the justice of
punishment’

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 53

(XWKDQDVLD STUDENT INFORMATION

Euthanasia or mercy killing If dying people experience much
is the dilemma of the physical distress, have no
decade. companionship, feel no
understanding, there will be quite a
E. Udall The Independent 7/12/94 few who will ask for voluntary
euthanasia.

John Hinton, Professor of Psychiatry,
Middlesex Hospital

Euthanasia comes from the Greek eu = well, thanatos = death and is
usually used as a term meaning bringing about a death which is for the good
of the person dying.

Euthanasia has become a bigger and bigger current moral issue thanks to
advances in medical technology. People are living longer and they can be
kept alive for longer too. They are also, in some cases, suffering for longer. It
is now possible to keep people alive when, in the past they would have died.

This has raised moral questions about whether we should keep people alive
as far as technology will let us? People also ask whether we should help
people who want to end their lives but are too frail to do so?

The questions often arise when talking about the very old, terminally ill, in
incurable pain. But these are not the only possible cases.

Before we can talk about the morality of euthanasia we need to look at the
different types of euthanasia.

Typical of philosophy,
we’ve only just started
and already it’s getting
complicated!

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 54

(XWKDQDVLD STUDENT TASK

5HDG WKH GLIIHUHQW W\SHV RI HXWKDQDVLD WKHQ PDWFK XS
WKH H[DPSOHV WR WKH FRUUHFW GHILQLWLRQ

VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA • A young girl has cancer.
Doctors give her a drug that
• Euthanasia is performed because will kill her.
the dying person has asked for it.
• A patient with cancer asks his
NON VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA doctor to give him pills, which
will end his life.
• Euthanasia is carried out when
the views of the dying person • A teenage boy in a coma after
can’t be known. an accident is being kept alive
on a life support machine,
INVOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA which is switched off.

• This contrasts with voluntary and • An 80-year-old man is given
is where the person dying is an overdose of sleeping pills
unwilling or not asked for an in his tea. These kill him.
opinion, even though they could
give one. • Doctors give pain-killing drugs
to a man dying from cancer
PASSIVE EUTHANASIA but they stop all other
treatment.
• Withholding or withdrawing
treatment needed to keep the
person alive E.g. switching off a
life support machine.

ACTIVE EUTHANASIA

• Something is done to actually
cause death e.g. giving a lethal
injection.

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 55

(XWKDQDVLD STUDENT TASK

It is possible to mix the methods of euthanasia. Active and passive euthanasia can
be combined with voluntary, non- – voluntary and involuntary. Possible mixes are
passive voluntary, Active voluntary, passive non-voluntary, active non-
voluntary, passive involuntary, active involuntary.

Try and think of you own examples for the different
combinations.

3DVVLYH 9ROXQWDU\

$FWLYH 9ROXQWDU\ Some people argue that involuntary
3DVVLYH QRQ ² YROXQWDU\ euthanasia is just like murder and
$FWLYH QRQ ² YROXQWDU\ shouldn’t be called euthanasia at
3DVVLYH ,QYROXQWDU\ all. Can you think of examples
$FWLYH ,QYROXQWDU\ where people are killed against

their will but for their own ‘good’?

DISCUSS It is hard sometimes to tell the
difference between active and
passive euthanasia. Is switching a
life support machine off, doing
nothing to prevent death (passive)
or actively causing death
(active)?

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 56

(XWKDQDVLD STUDENT INFORMATION

¶$ VLPSOH WKHRU\ RI HXWKDQDVLD FRYHULQJ DOO HYHQWXDOLWLHV LV

LPSRVVLEOH· 0LFKDHO 3DOPHU

7KH PRUDOLW\ RI (XWKDQDVLD LV D YHU\ FRPSOH[ LVVXH DQG \RX
PXVW UHFRJQLVH WKDW (YHU\ FDVH LV GLIIHUHQW DQG WKH LVVXHV
DQG TXHVWLRQV VXUURXQGLQJ WKH FDVHV DUH GLIIHUHQW WRR 7R
ORRN DW WKH LVVXHV LQ GHSWK ZH ZLOO RQO\ ORRN DW YROXQWDU\
HXWKDQDVLD EXW HYHQ ZLWKLQ WKLV FDWHJRU\ WKH UDQJH RI
SRVVLELOLWLHV DUH LPPHQVH62 $7 $// 7,0(6 ² %(:$5( 2)

29(5 *(1(5$/,6,1*

,Q *URXSV

1.Read and discuss the case of Jim.

2. Let everyone in your group say whether they think euthanasia is
the right thing to happen and what their reasons are.Then, as a
group, rank the reasons in order.1 would be the statement the
group agrees with most down to the one that the group agrees with
least. Give reasons for your order. * The person who gave the
argument can expand on what they said to try and make their case
more convincing*

NOTE
This exercise will help you think about how good the
arguments for and against euthanasia are.

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 57

(XWKDQDVLD STUDENT INFORMATION

Jim’s Story

Jim was lying in a hospital bed,
suffering from Alzheimer’s
disease. His brain cells had seriously
deteriorated and he was unable to speak
or care for himself. He was being kept alive by food and
water being fed through a tube into his nose and stomach.
Jim was a retired army officer who had fought in the Second
World War. He was now 75 and his family accepted that his
death was only a matter of time.

Jim had contracted Alzheimer’s not long after he had retired
and he knew that it would cause helplessness and eventually his
death. Well before it got to this stage, Jim had written a letter to
his doctor saying that he wanted the doctor to put him to sleep
forever, if he got to a stage of total helplessness and dependence
on others.

Given the legal position, however, the doctor could not carry this
out.

Jim’s younger brother, Sam, another retired army officer visited
regularly. There was only 3 years age difference and the
brothers had always been very close. One day Jim, was very
distressed and kept making mouth movements as if he was
trying to say something. A few minutes later, Sam went to his car
and came back with his pistol. When Jim saw this, he nodded.
Sam fired 3 shots through his brother’s head and another into
his stomach. Calmly he put the gun down and waited for the
police to arrive.

• Jim’s story is taken from ‘The Right to Die’ by D. Humphry and A. Wickett
The Bodley Head Ltd (London 1986)

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 58

8WLOLWDULDQLVP STUDENT INFORMATION
DQG (XWKDQDVLD

For the Utilitarians to decide whether euthanasia is right or
wrong, they have to look at whether it will fit in with the
Greatest Happiness Principle.
Utilitarians will only support euthanasia if it will increase the
greatest happiness for the greatest number.

The greatest happiness principle and the issue of
euthanasia

Look back at your notes on the Greatest Happiness Principle.
The following ideas might influence a Utilitarian’s view.

• Utilitarians will look at the short term and long term consequences of
allowing euthanasia.

James Rachels says that killing a hopelessly ill patient who is in
great pain, at his or her own request would decrease misery. He
says this would give the patient relief from pain and dignity in
their final days. He calls this argument the argument from
mercy.

Jonathan Glover points out possible bad consequences.
It could lead to a situation where patients feel under pressure
not to be a burden and ask for euthanasia even if they actually
want to live. It could also mean that care for the dying goes
downhill.

Rule Utilitarians would look for rules to cover euthanasia as a whole.
This is not easy to do – the cases of euthanasia vary enormously.

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 59

8WLOLWDULDQLVP STUDENT INFORMATION
DQG (XWKDQDVLD

A satisfactory view? WEAKNESSES

STRENGTHS Seems to allow for euthanasia even
if the patient does not want it.
Fits in with common feelings. Utilitarians say that we can allow
Having to judge whether euthanasia euthanasia for someone in great pain
will bring about the greatest happiness because it would reduce the amount
for the greatest number seems right of pain in the world. But what if the
because the whole point of allowing patient does not actually want to be
euthanasia is to bring about relief put out of their misery?
from misery. Looking at whether A Utilitarian could counter this
euthanasia fits with the GHP seems a objection by saying, overall that
good way to judge. euthanasia in this case would not
James Rachels in his article ‘The bring about the best consequences.
Morality of Euthanasia’ says that the
utilitarian argument which supports It is not such a practical theory:
euthanasia is a common one. The idea Difficult to work out
that we should be bringing about relief consequences.
from pain is agreed by a lot of people. Because the cases of euthanasia
differ so greatly and the possible
Is a practical theory. consequences are so wide it is hard
to work out what will bring about the
There are lots of different GHP. This is a problem with
circumstances where euthanasia might Utilitarianism in general but is
be considered. Utilitarianism allows especially important when talking
these circumstances to be a part of the about euthanasia because you have
discussion when they are considering to spend time thinking about
whether it is right or not. consequences for the patient, family,
Jonathan Glover in ‘Causing Death doctors, society etc but the person
and Saving Lives’ says that the who is affected the most (the patient)
Utilitarian view of euthanasia allows is only counted equally with the rest.
the short and long term consequences Surely the patient’s wishes should be
to be considered and acknowledges more important?
that there are possible bad
consequences e.g. where patients feel
under pressure not to be a burden and
ask for euthanasia.

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 60

.DQWLDQ (WKLFV STUDENT INFORMATION
DQG (XWKDQDVLD

For Kantians to decide whether euthanasia is right or wrong, they have to look
at whether it will fit in with the Categorical Imperative. They can also look at
what Kant says about suicide because this is something he talks specifically
about.

Kant believes suicide does not fit in with the first form of the Categorical Imperative.
Euthanasia also seems to go against the second formulation so the Kantian will
probably be against it.

NOTE: There are problems with whether Kant’s arguments work but we will deal
with that later.

The Categorical Imperative and the Issue of Euthanasia –
Arguments AGAINST Euthanasia

Look back at your notes on the Categorical Imperative.
Euthansia is supposed to contradict the Imperative in the following ways.

• Universalisation. The Kantian only accepts as moral laws, those which can be
universalised i.e. it makes sense to apply to everyone.

Committing suicide goes against the universal moral law of acting out of the
maxim of self-love. Kant believed that to say ‘I’ll kill myself because to keep
going would bring more evil than good is self-contradictory. To show you
love yourself, you have to try and improve your life.

• Treating people as ends not means. The Kantian says the only situations which
are moral are those which allows people to act as rational human beings. They
have to be respected and valued.

It is our duty not to kill people because this does not show respect towards
another person.

But also see Kantian Ethics – Arguments FOR Euthanasia

Philosophy Support Materials: Moral Philosophy – Student Activities (H and Int 2) 61