Aristotle and Capt Pun Aristotle\'s

Aristotle and Capt Pun

Aristotle's View on Capital Punishment

This paper will examine capital punishment as a moral issue and argue the opinion that it is an immoral practice. In order to do this, this paper will employ Aristotle's ethical system and explore his notion of values. This paper will carefully identify and explain the premises that lead to this argument,

To do this effectively, one must also look at the flipside of the issue and create a possible counter argument. This counter argument would establish that capital punishment is indeed a moral practice and acceptable consequence of one's immoral actions. In others words, the strong belief of an eye for an eye. This paper will work to show why the counter argument does not defeat the opinion that capital punishment is wrong and should be a part of society values. However by presenting both sides of the argument, one finds both strengths and weaknesses in both views.

Part of the issue of exploring capital punishment is that one needs a framework in which to establish its definition. In other words, what are the grounds for such action upon a human life? It comes down to how one's society defines justice and how to balance one's perception of justice? Does one life taken by another automatically mean that life is lost? The equation does not balance in the sense that human suffering results regardless of what action is taken. Aristotle believed that everyone aims to be good based on naturalism and self-realization. The basis of justice begins with actual moral judgments and ethical practices. Still Aristotle believed human beings would revert to natural tendencies in order to achieve a level of happiness. Good character found in natural tendencies evolve over time and develop through practice. In other words, one is born perfect and everyone has the same chance of committing immoral acts just as much as they have of committing good deeds in life. A person's character is established by the habits they form over time during the flow and ebb of the vicious cycle of making moral or immoral choices. This defines a person's virtue; how well they handle the vicious cycle. Aristotle believed that the natural state of pleasure was neither good or bad but just a natural result of achieving good character. This is an interesting concept when it comes to immoral acts of violence some may find pleasurable in committing. One would argue the state of mind when such acts are committed. Regardless, does that make it right for society to decide morality for that person in the form of justice. Let us explore more of what Aristotle defined as justice.

Aristotle defines justice as a virtue by using the golden mean, saying that justice is the mean between committing injustice and suffering from it. Since he admits that suffering from injustice is involuntary, this definition is generally regarded as being used merely in order to bring justice into line with other virtues already discussed and therefore is not a useful guide to virtuous action. So is it immoral to cause suffering? Today's framework would establish that it is indeed wrong to cause suffering but then where does that leave justice? As eluded to before, there is no simple balance. Even as one side sees retribution for crimes committed, there are still victims; the person who caused the injustice and paid for it with their life and their remaining family. How does that make capital punishment right? Still on the counter argument; what about the family who must live without their loved one forever? How does justice work to make it fair for them as they do not suffer such loss? Also one must remember, justice has a job to do for society's sake and keep such immoral, bad character people from committing the crime again. Is the solution life imprisonment? Or does that just equate to someone getting a free ride; our tax dollars are work from; the very people who are suffering? This brings up the notion that there are different degrees of justice that can be defined for each individual case.

Aristotle also distinguishes between distributive and retributatory justice. Retributive justice, or punishment for things done wrong, is similar to criminal courts. Distributive justice is conceptually similar to civil courts and awarding financial compensation.

People should not be held accountable for involuntary actions; things they were forced to do, or that they did in ignorance of the facts, which may be called mistakes or mishaps. Voluntary unjust actions can be divided according to whether they were premeditated or not. Crimes done due to emotion rather than reason (ex: sudden anger) are acts of injustice, but the person who does things in the heat of the moment should not be regarded as a wicked or unjust person. Premeditated unjust actions can only be done by unjust or wicked people, Aristotle thought. This may seem fairly sensible, but is an important departure from Socrates and Plato who held that people never did things which they realized were wrong, and that all evil was caused solely by ignorance.

With this in mind when concerning the issue of capital punishment being an immoral practice, one must understand the extremes and the details of each individual crime against society within Aristotle's framework. This can get complex as it really starts to redefine what constitutes an immoral act. In order to argue that capital punishment is wrong for society, that society must decide what defines immorality. According to Aristotle, different crimes hold different levels of badness and these crimes hold different levels of punishment. It is up to society to embrace a zero tolerance for capital punishment and decide how worst crimes such as: serial murder, rape, terrorism and sexual offenses against children will be punished. Ask anyone who has suffered as a result of these types of crimes and they will more than likely tell you that life in prison is too good for such a criminal mind and that justice will only be served when that person meets their maker. Still one must take into account that suffering is an injustice and therefore immoral. In this respect because capital punishment causes the suffering of the individual and his or her family, then it is immoral. It is wrong by this definition, however, the practice has been reintroduced into society so the justification for its existence must be argued.