GARCIA, MARIANNE FAYE N.ETHICSBSOT-4MS. DANIELLE JOANNE V. MUNJI, OTRP

1. UTILITARIATISM ETHICS (Article)Ieva: The Death Penalty: Utilitarian and Deontological PerspectiveCheryl 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).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 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.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.

3. DEONUTILITY ETHICS(Blog about Batman)The Dark Knightpresents two deontological "heroes" at the beginning of the movie: the Dark Knightand 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.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 greatesthappinessand 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 considersfairnessand 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.

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 onvirtue.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 expensiveA 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.