GARCIA, MARIANNE FAYE N.

BSOT-4

ETHICS
MS. DANIELLE JOANNE V. MUNJI, OTRP

1. UTILITARIATISM ETHICS
(Article)
Ieva: The Death Penalty: Utilitarian and Deontological Perspective
Cheryl Dunlap, a 64-year-old Sunday school teacher and Florida State
University nurse, was found dead and dismembered in the Apalachicola
National Forest in Florida on December 15, 2007 (Black). The bones of her
head and hands were found in a campfire pit five miles from the location of
her body and the Florida jury of twelve has now unanimously recommended
the suspect, Gary Michael Hilton, for the death sentence.
Hilton, now called a serial killer in many news headlines, had already
avoided execution in Georgia in 2008. He was instead sentenced to prison for
life after killing 24-year-old Meredith Emerson whom he had abducted from a
hiking trail in the north Georgia mountains (Montaldo). In this previous case,
Hilton had accepted a plea offer that exempt him from the death penalty by
agreeing to lead the investigators to the decapitated body of Emerson. Hilton
is also the main suspect in another murder case where a couple were killed
in North Carolina in another forest but was never charged in that case.
The jury made their final decision on February 21st and Judge James C.
Hankinson said that he would officially sentence Hilton in about two weeks.
Cheryl Dunlaps family members have expressed approval of the jurys
decision. Dunlaps close friend, Gloria Tucker, however, said that even
though she was also satisfied with the decision, she did not believe that it
would bring justice for the loss of her friend. With more than two-thirds of
countries (Amnesty International) having abolished the death penalty, it is
clear that this is quite a controversial form of punishment. In this paper, the
contrasting theories of Utilitarianism and Deontology will be used to discuss
whether the death sentence is a morally admissible penalty.
Utilitarianism states that the morality of an action is determined by its
adherence to the Greatest Happiness Principle, which guides us to cause the
greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people
(Utilitarianism: What Utilitarianism Is, #2). To make a moral decision, the
outcome of certain actions must be considered first. Because the emphasis is
placed on the consequences of your actions, the theory of Utilitarianism is a
form of Consequentialism. Therefore, the best type of government is one that
has the best consequences. In general, Utilitarians support democracy based
on the belief that each individual is the best judge of his welfare. The
government is supposed to provide the greatest amount of possible liberty
and equality and to guide the progress of society through peaceful political
practices (Encyclopedia Britannica).

GARCIA, MARIANNE FAYE N.

BSOT-4

ETHICS
MS. DANIELLE JOANNE V. MUNJI, OTRP

Utilitarianism disapproves of punishment that is administered as a way

to make the criminal pay for his crime. Instead, the role of punishment is to
prevent any future crime by inflicting fear of punishment and by either
reforming the criminal or protecting him from society. In a nutshell, every law
and decision that is made should produce the best results for the greatest
number of people.
According to the Utilitarian theory, the death penalty is not meant to
provide justice by taking an eye for an eye. Although this form of
punishment is not supposed to be retributive by nature, it is, however, meant
to deter many criminals from committing murder. The severity of a
punishment is intended to cause fear and, therefore, prevent crime. Capital
punishment is also preferable to imprisonment for this worst kind of crime
because it prevents the criminal from being released from prison and
committing murder again (IEP). From this perspective, the taking of one life is
justified if it prevents the taking of other, innocent lives. If judged that the
consequence of permitting the criminal to live may result in more murder,
then the death penalty would be considered an appropriate punishment in
that particular case.
Another argument, although of a lower quality, is that the government
saves money by executing murderers instead of supporting them in prison at
the expense of the community. So while the criminal is surely not happy
being imprisoned for life, the happiness of the community is also diminished
because funds that could otherwise be allocated to education or the arts is
used for housing the criminal. In conclusion, the utilitarian would only
advocate for the death penalty if the sacrifice of one criminal would generate
greater happiness to the community. Each scenario needs to be considered
separately and the appropriate punishment in any case is based upon the
judgment of which consequences would result in the greatest good.
In contrast to Utilitarianism and consequential theory in general,
Deontological ethics places moral emphasis on the intentions of your actions,
not the actual consequences. Deontology is described as the study of the
nature of duty and obligation. The morality of an action is based upon good
intention, which is defined by its adherence to a rule or set of rules. Such a
rule is called a maxim and if a person wills a maxim to become a universal
law such that everyone in any situation should abide by this maxim, it is
judged to be morally right.
The categorical imperative, which is introduced in Immanuel Kants
Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, is the central concept of Kants
deontological philosophy (Groundwork: Moving from popular moral
philosophy to the metaphysics of morals, Part II). The categorical imperative
includes three formulations that are used to judge the moral relevance of any
intention or duty. The first of these formulations is to act so that your maxim
(a rule of conduct) can be made into a universal law. The second formulation

GARCIA, MARIANNE FAYE N.

BSOT-4

ETHICS
MS. DANIELLE JOANNE V. MUNJI, OTRP

is to treat others as ends, not as mere means. And the third is to always live
in the realm of ends, where you imagine yourself to be the legislator and the
source of moral law.
Kant believes in the retributive theory of punishment, which is the
familiar idea of an eye for an eye. He says that the punishment must be in
response to guilt and that the guilty must be punished so that justice and
equality, the proper foundations of law, can exist. Equality in the realm of
crime and punishment is meant to inflict the same amount of pain on the
criminal as the criminal had inflicted on the victim (Stairs). Though this may
sound too harsh and brutal, we must remember the connection that
punishment has to the idea of maxims and universal laws. For example, if a
criminal steals, he is making property insecure. His actions are based on the
motive that, if universalized, would make everyones, including his own,
property insecure. So the connection to the retributive theory is based on the
belief that if you steal from another person, you also steal from yourself. No
one forces a person to commit a crime but if that person does commit a
certain crime, he should be willing to accept the same kind of treatment.
The deontological perspective recognizes that in the case of Gary
Hilton, the death penalty is a morally appropriate punishment. The
retributive theory used in support of this claim does not, however, go as far
as claiming that his body should also be dismembered in a similar way as
were the bodies of his victims. Retribution is not a form of revenge and it
would be a mistake to confuse it as such. Kant recognizes that administering
the death penalty with any further punishment such as torture would simply
be inhumane and immoral (Stairs).
Both the theory of Utilitarianism and that of Deontology permit the
death penalty to be a morally permissible punishment. They do this,
however, according to very different reasoning. The philosophy of
Deontology presents the best evidence for the morality of capital
punishment. This is because the retributive theory still respects the humanity
of the criminal. By punishing the criminal, we are going against the criminals
wishes at that moment, but in general we are respecting their freedom in the
choices that they made. The government acknowledges both the free will
that accompanied certain actions and the responsibility of that person for
those actions. We treat the criminal as an end in himself, which is a powerful
form of respect even though that respect may not lie specifically in his
lifestyle or his choices. Utilitarianism, however, dismisses any kind of respect
for the one person in hopes of achieving greater happiness for the
community. The person is not treated as an end but as a mean for achieving
a better end. Deontological ethics allows us to perceive this person as an end
in himself and to recognize that his actions reflect the kind of world in which
he chooses to live and if his world includes death, then that is what he has
chosen to receive himself as well.

GARCIA, MARIANNE FAYE N.

BSOT-4

ETHICS
MS. DANIELLE JOANNE V. MUNJI, OTRP

2. DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS
(Article)
Do your duty, result is a bonus'
As the shadows of the evening sun started creeping, the boys gathered
at the playground, divided themselves into two groups and started playing.
Having enjoyed every moment of the play they returned home, unmindful of
the win or defeat. They yelled, screamed and were ecstatic while playing.
If the essence of the Bhagavad-Gita is to be demonstrated by a single
example, the above illustration stands as the best. Do your duty and the
result is just a bonus' is what the Gita says. Many of us, many a time work for
unending end-results, are always on the lookout for something, forfeiting the
small beauties of life.
When Arjuna was hesitant to initiate the fight at Kurushetra, Krishna
tells him Fighting is your duty. Do it. Don't worry about the result. If you die
you would go to heaven. Or if you win, you would be giving the enemy an
opportunity to go to heaven. In any case it is good.
People should have goals but should not feel that they are forcibly
thrust on them. If you are dejected while working on your goal and live with
the only hope that you would be happy after reaching the target, the next
target awaits you. Happiness is a continuous present-tense. Students who
curse themselves while studying should realise this.
I often conclude my personality-development class for the students with a
story. It is funny but with a great moral, stressing the importance of
implementing' than enjoying' the speech of motivators. When Abhimanyu
died during the war, Arjuna was inconsolably weeping, and Krishna by his
side was sad. When somebody asked why he was so upset and worried,
Arjuna said, My son was recently married; he was nice and obedient. I
taught him the art of war, how to fight, and now I lost a warrior. When
Krishna was asked why he was sad, he said, At the beginning of the war I
preached him the Gita saying that ultimate happiness lies in realising the
artificialness of all human relations. He listened with utmost care then but is
not implementing it now. Hence I am sad.

GARCIA, MARIANNE FAYE N.

BSOT-4

ETHICS
MS. DANIELLE JOANNE V. MUNJI, OTRP

3. DEONUTILITY ETHICS
(Blog about Batman)
The Dark Knight presents two deontological "heroes" at the beginning
of the movie: the Dark Knight and the White Knight, Batman and Harvey
Dent. Both believe very strongly in the rule of law. (Listen closely - you'll see
that submitting to law is a key theme in the Batman movies). For Batman,
there are two driving duties: you must save everyone you can and you must
not kill anyone. We see at the beginning of the movie, to meet these ends
Batman endures quite a bit of physical pain. Similarly, Harvey Dent is
absolutely committed to bringing justice to every criminal, no matter what
the consequences are. He faces threats against his life and against his career
with the absolute integrity of a deontological hero. But later in the movie,
both men will be pushed to see how strong their committment to duty really
is.
Let's begin by talking about Batman. He faces a major challenge when
the criminals pick up on the fact that Batman can't kill anyone. At one point,
Batman tries to question Salvatore Morani (the guy Two-Face almost shot in
the limo before killing the driver), but Morani tells Batman that Batman has
limits - he won't kill, whereas the Joker has no limits. At a more important
scene, Batman throws Joker off of the cliff but catches him before he hits the
ground. How much the city would have been a safer place if Batman had just
killed Joker! But that would violate his deontological principles, and Joker
knew it. That is why Joker was laughing all the way to his death (because he
thought he had corrupted even Batman), and why he acknowledges him as
incorruptible when dangling from the rope.
However, despite all of the inconveniences and pain Batman had to
experience throughout the movie, the most painful of all was undoubtedly
losing Rachel Dawes. Both Batman and Harvey Dent loved Rachel, and when
she was killed, they were both put under the ultimate test: could they still
follow their duty to punish the bad guys by the book, to not kill anyone but to
struggle for what was right, when they knew that the bad guys would get
away and no one would be adequately punished for Rachel's death? And this
is what separated the two characters. For Harvey, it was too much. Rachel's
death made him give up on the duy to the law and take matters into his own
hands. (More on this in a later blog). But Batman, who lost just as much as
Harvey Dent, remained committed to justice. He didn't kill Joker when he
could have, but was resolved to continue fighting the good fight - no matter
how impossible or painful it gets.

GARCIA, MARIANNE FAYE N.

BSOT-4

ETHICS
MS. DANIELLE JOANNE V. MUNJI, OTRP

And so, at the end, Batman is presented as the ultimate moral hero.
His committment to morality gives him physical pain, has absolutely ruined
his reputation, and has made him lose the woman he loved. He is committed
to fulfilling his duty, no matter what happens.
4. VIRTUE ETHICS
(News Article)
Should companies pay to pollute?
Should companies pay to pollute? Great thinkers like Aristotle have mulled
such questions for centuries, says philosopher Mark Vernon in the Magazine's
series on modern ethical dilemmas.
Carbon credits allow organisations to pay to pollute. If you have a
carbon credit, you can emit one tonne of carbon. The aim is to reduce carbon
emissions by putting a price on climate change pollution. But there's a
tension here. A market in carbon also creates the right to emit pollutants. So
is the system just?
You can seek an answer in different ways, according to the three
traditions of moral philosophy that dominate in our times. A utilitarian
approach, which seeks people's greatest happiness and is associated with
British philosopher Jeremy Bentham, is only interested in whether it works.
Reducing levels of carbon in the atmosphere will, presumably, reduce the
risk of adverse climate change, and that, in turn, will mean future
generations are a lot happier than they would be if carbon levels continued
to rise. In short, says the utilitarian, if you have to create a market for carbon
in order to keep people happy, so be it.
But it will take time to see whether carbon credits work, time the climate
science suggests is in short supply.
A Kantian approach, that considers fairness and rights, might examine
questions such as this: does the market for carbon favour richer nations,
those with the wealth to pay for credits?
Yes, reply countries like India and China, pointing out that the system is
unjust because it means the very nations that caused the problem can carry
on polluting.

GARCIA, MARIANNE FAYE N.

BSOT-4

ETHICS
MS. DANIELLE JOANNE V. MUNJI, OTRP

Further, carbon credits arguably distribute responsibility in an unjust way. For

example, if a poorer country reduces its carbon emissions, it will have
surplus carbon credits. These can be bought by a wealthier nation that can
then carry on emitting.
The net result could be to increase the pollution gap between rich and poor
countries. This would not just introduce a new inequality into the world, but
might turn carbon emission into a luxury, as desirable as a mink coat.
This possibility raises the third way of looking at the problem, based
on virtue.
Virtue ethics - associated with Aristotle - would want to ask about the moral
standing of those engaged in this activity. What happens to the moral stigma
attached to pollution?
It seems that carbon credits reduce the stigma by giving countries and
companies the right to pollute, so long as they pay for it. Richer entities are
doing something that might be thought wrong, but they can pay the price,
thereby implying they have been forgiven.
...or build cleaner facilities - also expensive
A final question that the virtue ethics approach would have concerns whether
carbon credits undermine the shared responsibility that, ideally, all nations
should have for the planet and its resources.
A marketplace for carbon might load responsibility for reducing emissions
onto poorer countries. Shared responsibility is, therefore, undermined by it.