Other Homework Help

I’m working on a other discussion question and need a sample draft to help me study.

Required Resources

Read/review the following resources for this activity:

• Textbook: Chapters 9, 10 ——-> Rachels, S., & Rachels, J. (2019). The elements of moral philosophy (9th ed.). Mcgraw-Hill Education.
• Lesson
• Minimum of 1 scholarly source (in addition to the textbook)

Introduction
Kant’s famous First Formulation of the Categorical Imperative reads, “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” Kant taught morality as a matter of following maxims of living that reflect absolute laws. “Universal” is a term that allows for no exceptions, and what is universal applies always and everywhere. Don’t forget about the second formulation of the categorical imperative which states, “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means.” It is just as important.

Initial Post Instructions
For the initial post, address one of the following sets of questions:

1. What are the personal and/or communal ethical factors that may be involved in determining the moral position of either side given a contemporary debate, such as those concerning animal rights, stem cell research, abortion, the death penalty, and so forth?
2. Elaborate in detail the ethical positions arrived at by using the Kantian categorical imperative relative to the long standing debate surrounding the death penalty or abortion. Argue the ethics from the point of view of the prisoner or from the fetus
3. Evaluate the ethical positions in part two. You will want to detail whether they are convincing, logical, correct, consistent, etc.

Follow-Up Post Instructions
Respond to at least one peer. Further the dialogue by providing more information and clarification.

Writing Requirements

• Minimum of 2 posts (1 initial & 1 follow-up)
• Minimum of 2 sources cited (assigned readings/online lessons and an outside scholarly source)
• APA format for in-text citations and list of references

Student Sample:

Kant’s Categorical Imperatives on Capital Punishment

According to Kant, categorical imperatives are universal absolute laws that everyone should accept and guide rational humans responsible for their deeds and not insane or non-humans. In his first imperative formulation, Immanuel Kant postulated that rational beings should act in such a way that their actions could become universal laws (Rachels, (2019). If our actions cannot be acceptable, then we are immoral, and we should avoid them. Further, the philosopher argues that retributive punishment should be equal to the actions of the wrong done (Rachels, 2019). Therefore, if a rational being kills, the person deserves the same sentence to balance the offense and the loss. From Kant’s view on punishment, the philosopher endorsed death punishment against capital offenders.

However, Kant’s ideology on capital punishment is self-defeating because he implores humans to respect a person’s dignity and humanity above all living things. Moreover, putting individuals in prisons and executing them to maintain law and order in society is against the imperative of using them as a means to achieve society’s needs (Rachels, 2019). According to the Christian view from which our legal systems have evolved, it is against human morals and dignity to kill because life is sanctified and God-given (Attila, 2006). Thus, no one has the right to take another person’s life but only God. Accordingly, Jesus said that we should not apply the rule of an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth, but instead, we should give our tormentors the other cheek to slap.

From a theological perspective, I do not support that offenders should be let free and harm society. However, a convict’s cruelty in the community should punish and rehabilitate the offenders rather than kill them. Further, death punishment destroys human dignity, as people are irreplaceable. Moreover, sometimes the accused individuals are not guilty of the offenses, and time has vindicated many (Attila, 2006). Therefore, executing the wrongly convicted persons leads to a slippery slope of slaughtering innocent persons while leaving the actual offenders at large. Therefore, my argument is that since Kant’s absolute categorical imperatives are self-defeating as the case of lying to save lives when the Dutch fishermen did to protect Israelis from the Nazis holocaust, the law on capital punishment should be re-appealed to take the form of deterrence and rehabilitation.

References

Rachels, J. (2019). The Elements of Moral Philosophy. New York, McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Ataner, Attila. (2006). Kant on Capital Punishment and Suicide. Kant-Studien. 97. 452-482. 10.1515/KANT.2006.028.