Capital punishment is a practice where the state punishes serious crimes by imposing death. This practice has been around for many years but has been controversial for at least the last hundred years. Its use is vehemently opposed by many who argue it violates human rights and offends justice. It is argued that capital punishment does not deter crime, a key goal of law enforcement. The United States currently has the highest rate of executions globally, with only 1% of countries experiencing more than 500 executions per year and 16% having less than ten executions per year. Despite this, people are still executed in some countries with no laws prohibiting certain crimes. The purpose of this article is to discuss what detailed information of the metaethical theory on Virtue Ethics about “Capital Punishment into ethics” and the applied ethical issues on Divine Command Theory and the alternative form of punishment to it replace according to the “Law and the Chapter of God.”
Metaethical theory on virtual ethics
Virtue Ethics is a classically inspired moral theory that takes the cultivation of character as its fundamental concern. Virtue Ethics bases its understanding of morality on the concept of ‘habituation.’ Namely, through repeated effort at maintaining good habits, a person can cultivate the virtues required to live a good life. The virtues emphasized in Virtue Ethics are courage, justice, wisdom, temperance, moderation, and generosity. [1]The person’s moral character is thus deemed central in applying virtue ethics principles to ethical dilemmas.
In its simplest form, virtue ethicists believe one must follow virtue not to do wrong and be punished by God for doing evil. However, more complex forms of the theory contend that a virtuous life will pay off. In the end, moral actions will lead to good things happening to you in this life and future lives.
Aristotle, Plato’s most famous student, diverges from his teacher’s view of Virtue Ethics. Aristotle claims that at least some judgments about virtue can be validated independently of any appeal to decisions about the rightness of actions. Atheists have criticized virtue ethics over its dependence on theism, or to say whether or not something is virtuous, one must appeal to God’s nature.
Aristotle offers the following argument against attributing inconsistent claims to Socrates. First, we need to settle whether Socrates ever attributed conflicting claims to anyone. If he did not, there is no reason to think that he ascribed conflicting claims to himself, and so we can suppose that he was consistent in his attributions of inconsistency to others. Second, we need to establish whether or not Socrates would have been disinclined to attribute consistently inconsistent beliefs about a single issue to himself. [2] My opinion is that because Aristotle’s argument about consistency rests on the assumption that there are no necessary reasons for human inconsistency, it seems reasonable to conclude that he could not have been a proponent of attributing inconsistently false beliefs about a single subject matter. Consequently, if Aristotle’s argument fails, it cannot be validly extended to infer that Aristotle consumed inconsistently wrong thoughts about a single subject matter.
It would be absurd for a virtue theorist to say that a virtuous person will consistently choose the most virtuous option. There may well be occasions when the most ethical action is to sacrifice oneself for others and do something very nasty. [3] A person can be viciously selfish in some situations. Still, the natural attribute of being virtuous does not make you always morally sound. However, about the Lawbook, “God-created people are capable of acknowledging fundamental ethical truths.”
A metaethical theory on moral right and wrong is distinguishable mainly by its approach to describe what is meant by ethical terms in use. Another point of distinction among the various theories revolves around attempts to try and provide codes of behavior that will guide the decision-making process. These theories have been criticized for applying their concepts in real-world applications, even though they are based on generally acceptable ethical concepts. Virtual ethics deals with business ethics, medical ethics, and computer science ethics.
Virtual moral cognition of humans and machines is presented as a comparatively new field of research in applied ethics and artificial intelligence. Metaethical theory on virtual ethics explains social constructivism as a more accurate approach to understanding the ethical value judgments in virtual society than metaethical realism. The philosophical discussion includes the concepts of sharing and perspective from post-socialist literature on digital life, such as Facebook and video games. Sharing and empathy are considered essential for sustained intellectual cooperation in the digital world.
The Biasness, Social Injustice, and the morally wrong nature of Capital punishment as a means of sentencing is common debatable topic in society today. The myth that capital punishment deters would-be criminals from committing grave offenses against the organization is exploited by some states. This violates human rights and offends justice, as stated in “Crime and Punishment.” Many methods have been used to decrease the number of executions, but these methods have not worked as well as some would hope. These methods include changes in sentencing, lessening the use of capital punishment, and reducing the number of crimes punishable by death. Arguably, capital punishment has never been a crime deterrent.
Capital Punishment is exceptionally immoral and, therefore, should be banned. Capital Punishment is against the rights of everyone who are punished. They are not justly given a second chance to live their lives after spending years in prison. These victims, who deserve a chance at life as any other citizen, get executed for the crimes they committed because of the people who imposed it upon them at a young age. [4] Justice is not being done by executing criminals for a crime caused by their community and other people who put them in a situation where they had no other option except crime. Sometimes race can be another factor for execution because it has been proven that African Americans are targeted more than white criminals and are prone to death over imprisonment, unlike white criminals in the world.
The United States justice system is the best known globally and considered an example; however, it has its flaws. The death penalty or Capital Punishment is one of those flaws and has been since it began thousands of years ago. However, most religious people tend to support the issue, as stated by its statistics. One vast flaw in the U.S. justice system is racial prejudice; “African-Americans are 12% of our nation’s population, but 42% of those on death row.” This tells us that black people are more likely to receive a death sentence than any other race for doing the same crime as a white person
The death penalty has been seen as a solution for some time, but the true problem with it is that it violates basic human rights. It is also a cruel and inhumane punishment to enforce on someone in order to punish them. [5] This type of punishment goes against Amnesty International’s belief system, which advocates against capital punishment without exception regardless of any other circumstance or guilt or innocence – only those who are accused should suffer from this injustice. But this argument ignores the legacy of prejudice and discrimination that often influences who will be sentenced to death for which crimes and which people will escape with their lives.
The alternative sentence of life without parole is an essential option in sentencing criminals. With this sentence, the offender spends the rest of their life with no possibility of parole, and they are in prison until they die from natural causes. Although it may seem harsh to some, it is a more just punishment for those who have committed a crime that requires capital punishment. This alternative sentence would be more closely aligned with the ethical theory of Virtue Ethics because it would allow for the offender to live a life much like everyone else and make decisions that would take into account their limited time on Earth. It would also be following the theory of Divine Command Theory because its purpose is to punish those who have sinned against God and through His law.
An argument about Applied Ethical Issues
One of the most fundamental theories of socializing and making decisions is the divine command theory. This theory proposes that all people must act following the word of God because, as his followers, his commands are what we observe. The theory says that his orders should govern our lives and become a guidebook with which we live our lives ethically. God commands us to love one another rather than hate, so hate is entirely unethical. However, using the divine command theory as a reference for how we socialize and make decisions means that everything else is perfectly ethical.
I believe that Divine Command Theory is the correct theory for our basis of ethics. I do not think the other approaches are wrong, but I do think that they are better as a sub-category to Divine Command Theory. If we have an immutable God who does not change, His Word does not change. This is why I believe God’s word should be the guidebook of living ethically.
Like Aristotle and Plato, many philosophers have claimed that the gods can be the guidebook for how we should live and make everyday ethical decisions. These philosophers did not want the gods to be normative but argued they were a ‘God-bearer.’ [6] This meant that they believed the gods reinforced positive universal moral standards and essentially ‘carried’ their convictions. Instead of using the gods as their guidance system, I think God’s commands should be used as the guidebook to show us how we should live ethically. It is my opinion to make everyday ethical decisions. We must use God’s word and apply it to our lives.
While many people rely on the Ten Commandments to guide their ethical decisions, we must acknowledge that these commandments were given to a specific people at a particular time and place. God has given us a much more comprehensive book with principles applicable universally across time and culture. The Bible is truly our guidebook for living ethically and lovingly in this world.
Humans are often not able to know what the Good or right course of action is, so they need guidance. The ethical dilemmas we face in life often involve conflicting duties and many possible courses of action, leaving us no clear sense of how to proceed. [7] We are uncertain which duty is most essential or balancing competing responsibilities. The Command Theory would help in this regard by providing a clear framework for knowing what our moral obligations are.
In addition to the divine command theory stating that God is the foundation of ethics and morality. We are often told to do things because the bible says so, but it doesn’t mean we have no choice but to oblige. For example, a child is suggested by their parents not to talk to strangers, and they still talk to strangers, maybe because they are nice looking and offering candy. Sometimes doing what we think is right may be wrong in God’s eyes like Noah and his ark; he did what he thought was right because he built the ark as God commanded him, but Genesis 6:5 tells us how displeased God was with how humans were behaving so He had Noah build the ark so that He could destroy the human race. Just like Noah, Adam also did what he thought was right by eating an apple from the tree of life he was forbidden to take form. But since Adam messed up, it gave way for sin after sin to lead to death being introduced in the world, which God did not want for creation. This shows that we must know our bibles not to make mistakes that God did not intend for.
Bibliography
“Capital Punishment.” Moral Choices Textbook. Accessed March 4, 2022.moral
Head, George. “Ethics in educational research: Review boards, ethical issues and researcher development.” European Educational Research Journal 19, no. 1 (2020): 72-83. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1474904118796315
Hopster, Jeroen. “Explaining historical moral convergence: the empirical case against realist intuitionism.” Philosophical Studies 177, no. 5 (2020): 1255-1273. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11098-019-01251-x
Robertson, Mcquilkin, Copan, and Paul. “Crime and Punishment.” Last modified 2014.
Robertson, Mcquilkin, Copan, and Paul. “LAW.” ProQuest Ebook Central. Last modified 2014.
[1] Capital Punishment.” Moral Choices Textbook. Accessed March 4, 2022.
[2] Hopster, Jeroen. “Explaining historical moral convergence: the empirical case against realist intuitionism.” Philosophical Studies 177, no. 5 (2020): 1255-1273. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11098-019-01251-x
[3] Robertson, Mcquilkin, Copan, and Paul. “LAW.” ProQuest Ebook Central. Last modified 2014.
[4] Hopster, Jeroen. “Explaining historical moral convergence: the empirical case against realist intuitionism.” Philosophical Studies 177, no. 5 (2020): 1255-1273. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11098-019-01251-x
[5] Robertson, Mcquilkin, Copan, and Paul. “Crime and Punishment.” Last modified 2014
[6] Capital Punishment.” Moral Choices Textbook. Accessed March 4, 2022.
[7] Head, George. “Ethics in educational research: Review boards, ethical issues and researcher development.” European Educational Research Journal 19, no. 1 (2020): 72-83. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1474904118796315
write