args

The Death Penalty Should be Abolished.

*Counterarguments* 1. Kant's categorical imperative "The problem with Kant's deontological philosophy is that it puts all emphasis on actions and not consequences." --> Uh, that isn't the problem. That's the very nature of deontology. Yes, in the case of lying, it would be wrong no matter what. This isn't an argument you are posing, but merely an appeal to the consequences. The categorical imperative basically states that if you want to do something moral, let the maxim of that action be universalized as a law of nature if you were to do it. So an example would be murder. If you murder someone, then you are making it a universal law of nature for everyone to murder. Obviously, you wouldn't want this on yourself, so you don't murder. In the case of rape, no you would not be considered immoral. You are not the one doing the action, but being acted UPON. 2. Social benefit. Your points such as "The cost of the death penalty is exorbitant, while life without parole is much cheaper" and "The death penalty is not a deterrent" are points about SOCIAL BENEFIT. They aid the society as a whole. One makes it cheaper for society, and the other prevents murderers from committing murders. These are examples of points based on consequentialism, where the morality of an action is based on its effects. "Secondly, your point about societal benefit is completely moot. I argue that the death penalty should be superseded with life without parole because the cons of capital punishment outweigh the pros." It isn't moot. You used social benefits as points. It would be valid if you successfully refute Kant's philosophy. You haven't, and thus you failed. 3. Retributive justice "If the corresponding punishment for murder is the death penalty, then, following the same logic, the punishment for rape should be rape. By the same token, the punishment for arson should be ignition of the arsonist's property." --> You miss the point about retributive justice. It isn't about an EQUAL punishment, but a PROPORTIONATE punishment. Rape wouldn't be dealt with rape, but dealt with a harsh punishment. However, you would be correct to ask then why is murder highlighted with the DP (even though not all murder cases go to DP). This is because murder violates the right to life, the essential right to every human being. "The system does fail to punish its criminal when condemning murderers to life without parole." Do you concede o.O? "How do you define weak? Japan has instated capital punishment and is militarily weak. North Korea has instated capital punishment and is economically weak." --> I define weak as the law being weak. Of not doing it's job properly. 4. Economy "With more capital, there is more room for reform. Like I've already stated, the extra funds should be used to fortify prisons and improve conditions. That is why the economic factor is significant in my argument." --> The additional funds won't be that significant, since there aren't many DP cases and DP cases aren't that much more expensive than LWOP cases even if you are correct to say they cost more. We wouldn't gain much. As I've said before, the DP is about morality, not cost-effectiveness. "This is a very broad statement. To what does this apply? I am assuming that you mean that, even with life without parole, murderers will be released after 30 or 40 years and commit more crimes?" --> http://www.guardian.co.uk... "I agree, if the death penalty is to be implemented AT ALL, extra measures SHOULD be taken to ensure accurate rulings..." --> Because it isn't used right doesn't mean its foundations are wrong. 5. Kant again "Following the same logic, we could execute everyone in the United States, everyone with the capacity to kill, so murderers are deterred. This is why, even though it is based completely on technicalities, you point is moot." --> The capacity to kill is not an action. "No, to break it jeopardizes your own individual rights: right to be among society, liberty, right to property." --> And you haven't shown why that is only so. "It is morally wrong because it causes us to lower our standards to the mentality of the murderer, etc." --> And you haven't shown why it's morally wrong to lower our standards to the mentality of the murderer, though of course this isn't true. Our motive is justice, theirs is personal gain. ~Conclusion~ You may have noticed that I skipped some points about economic/social benefits. This is because my opponent has failed on his attack on Kant, and money should never overrule morals. Because he has failed in not only his understanding of the categorical imperative but his attack therefore, I urge for a vote for Con.