Resolved: Capital Punishment Is a Morally Justifiable Means of Punishment

First off, I would like to define a few ethical terms pertaining to the debate before I outline my framework:TermsMurder: "The crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought" (Merriam-Webster's Dictionary). Human Dignity: "An individual or group's sense of self-respect and self-worth, physical and psychological integrity and empowerment" (Merriam-Webster's Dictionary). Capital Punishment: "The legally authorized killing of someone as punishment for a crime" (American Civil Liberties Union). OpeningThis debate shall solely adhere to the subjective morality of this subject--capital punishment--and will not address the legality of this practice. Moreover, my case shall adhere to a normative ethical approach through the lens of meta-ethical thinking, whether that be through a Nichomachean, Kantian, Rawlsian, or Lockean approach. My approach shall stem from a normative system of Lockean thinking, also applying some Kantian concepts, in that individual rights are the highest moral standard. That being said, individual rights are quintessential moral deserts that extend to all human beings regardless of class, race, or gender. Therefore, capital punishment is intrinsically immoral in that it does not exhibit proper respect for human dignity; an individual's innate sense of self-respect or self-worth regardless of situational circumstances. Also, I will argue that capital punishment is no longer a needed form of punishment as a result of our modernized prison systems which are more than capable of making sure that dangerous criminals are seperated from society once convicted. I will first address my opponents initial contention that Aristotle's Nichomachean ethical system affirms execution as a justifiable means of maintaining a civil society as a result of the individual's wicked (unvirtous) nature and his/her threat to society at large. I will first debunk this assertion and then move on to my case. Debunking the Aristotelian, Nichomachean ApproachFirst of all, I would like to commend my opponent for his substantial understanding of ethical reasoning as well as providing an adequate explanation of vice and virtue. To expand on my oponent's summary, Aristotle believed that there were essentially four types of individuals; virtuous being the most 'moral' individual whose habits (desires) are in line with his/her moral system, continent being a person who strives to be virtuous but finds his/herself warding unwanted desires but ultimately succeeds in overcoming them, incontinent being someone who has insatiable desires and ultimately falls prey to them, and vicious being someone who disregards any moral system (being unable to determne right from wrong to any degree whereas the first three are able to) and also acts apart from reason consequently harming others. Aristotle, in agreement with what my openent has asserted, believed that these vicious individuals either be subjected to "seclusion or execution because any sort of punitive system would not correct such flawed behavior". This argumentation, however, blatantly defies a basic Aristotelian tenet; that of intrinsic human worth and dignity. Aristotle believed human life and flourishing was the highest good. Capital punishment more or less eviscerates that notion. In addition, we have to critically analyze Aristotle's claims and remind ourselves that he lived and wrote his philosophical works over 2,300 years ago; we need to perform some exegetical analysis. In that time period, capital punishment was seen as an alternative form of punishment since the probational jail systems were oftentimes inadequate structures to keep criminals alienated from the public. Assuredly, we must deduce that if Aristotle were to live among us in the 21st century and see all the technological advances that have been made in terms of the prison system, he would see this as an optimal, and only, way of keeping serious criminals (ie. murderers) away from the public square. In 300 B. C. , the prison systems were obviously at a technological disadvantage as compared to today's models and prisoners could possibly escape. Aristotle could have possibly taken this into account and decided that most pragmatic approach, if not able to detain the criminal through coventional means, would reccomend capital punishment. Now not only can we keep these criminals in solitary confinement, but we can also respect their intrinsic human dignity despite whatever horrific and grotesque crimes they may have comitted. A Kantian RebuttalNow that I have effectively debunked the Aristotelian affirmatory argument through objective exegetical analysis, I would like to move on to another more convincing argument against the usage of capital punishment. Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher, developed a normative ethical system termed the Categorical Imperative. This system denotes a couple of methods to deduce a moral conclusion from a dilemma; the end-in-itself principle and the universal law principle. The end-in-itself principle is the notion that categorizes all human life as an end in itself; human life cannot be used as a means to attain an end and doing so would be innately immoral. All human life, in Kant's view, must be regarded with the utmost respect and compassion. The second principle, the universal law, is slightly more complex and requires intense thought process. This notion is the idea that whatever moral action you undertake must be imagined as universal, and if so, would the world be able to continue if that notion is implemented. Let me explicate; if I steal food from a grocery store I must imagine that all people on Earth were to commit the same action and then I must analyze that result. Obviously, a world in which everyone stole food would not be a feasible world because the notion of trust would be deconstructed and there would be an enormous collapse in civil order. Similarly, we must implement Kant's principle of the universal law and imagine that if capital punishment was made a universal standard and every "vicious" person, in Aristotle's contradictory view, was to be murdered. This society would be one predicated on fear and complete brutality. The chance for that "vicious" person to be forgiven and rehabilitate his/herself in order to lead a better life would be utterly stripped from him/her. It violates the very basic notion of compassion and forgiveness. A world without compassion and forgiveness would be an unfeasible world thus negating and destroying the moral justification for the death penalty. Now, I'm not arguing for the release into society of serial killers or mass murderers but I am contending that now, in this highly advanced, 21st century society, that the death penalty itself is rendered useless and morally emasculate. We now have the proper systems to contain these criminals and make sure they are never able to pose a threat to society ever again.