Just And Moral Act Claims Kant example essay topic

With such great minds and an awesome influence that seems boundless, how can there not be references to the works of Thomas Hobbes and Immanuel Kant. The Fundamental Principles in the Metaphysics of Morality is used by the minority dissenting opinion to reiterate the concepts of the intrinsic dignity of man. While the majority uses the literary work the Leviathan to support their own opinions. Transforming and uplifting the case of Gregg vs. Georgia into an arena for a debate of Hobb ian and Kant philosophies. The majority claims that the death penalty serves two purposes, restitution and deterrence. Quoting the prior case of Frum an vs. Georgia, that "The instinct for retribution is part of the nature of man and channeling that instinct in the administration of criminal justice serves an important purpose in promoting the stability of a society governed by laws...

This is a classic statement that Hobbes himself could have possible uttered. For man is an awkward beast, driven by internal forces. The laws of nature. All men are equal and can perform equal acts of harm.

Once harmed, he that who has been hurt will make attempts to revenge. Either in the name of just, duty, honor, or by any other word, it is an example of man conforming to his nature. To curb his nature by law is what the courts claim to be a stable society, Thomas Hobbes calls this a commonwealth under the Leviathan. Deterrence, the power of the controlling entity to help guide and command those that its laws regulate against taking certain actions. Instilling fear within the hearts of man is a powerful and highly effective tool of leadership. As all men are equal this deterrence and creation of fear helps the Leviathan rule and have an edge over the citizens in the commonwealth.

Hobbes wants an ordered and just society. Where its people depend on the Leviathan for justice and protection. That is his reason for creating such commonwealth. His formula gives birth to a structured and organized society. According tot he courts a penalty such as that as death is a needed and essential law in an organized society that's its citizens rely on legal process rather then self-help to vindicate their wrongs. Society, the union of persons joining together to obtain a common goal.

Once this merger is completed then the work begins. Work toward the distribution of common goods and peace. All Efforts to ensure that those laws perform there intended good. Death may be the only option to guarantee that all members of society prosper. There may be a moral outrage at the particular offensiveness of the conduct, but still, there would be more of an outrage from the chaos that would be sure to follow.

The decision that capital punishment may be appropriate sanction in the extreme cases is an expression of the community's belief that certain crimes are themselves so grievous an affront to humanity that the only adequate response may be the penalty of death. The courts state that this majority of the population (thirty-five states) allow and approve of such extreme measures. In the commonwealth, the entirety of the governed population agrees with their leader on what best to do. Bath parties need the willingness of the population to accept such radical opinions and sanctions. On the dissenting opinion, Justice Brennan and Marshall give their thoughts.

Their words not only show a concern and a different interpretation of the constitution as well as showing that Kants's words may be old but his ideas are forever young. Immanuel Kant formulates that morality is an end within itself, an equal to that of dignity. This paired with the underlining principle of the eight amendment of our constitution reinforces the idea that such a penalty of death is cruel and unusual. And should be banded by our laws An act performed out of duty is a just and moral act claims Kant. The courts according to Justice Brennan have an inescapably duty, as the ultimate arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution, to say whether, when individuals condemned to death stand before out Bar, "moral concepts" require us to hold that the law has progressed to the point where we should declare that the punishment of death, ... even as it punishes, must treat its citizens in a manner consistent with the intrinsic worth of a hum being-a punishment must not be so severe as to be degrading to human dignity. This quite wordy and long statement is direct citing of Kant.

It explains that the intent of the courts is to act morally in duty and preserve the dignity of all citizens, even those that may not act to the wills of reason. Justice Brennan goes on to say that the cruel and unusual clause draws its meaning from the evolving standards of decency. That which we call good is the good will. It is this decency or good will that puts focus onto the essence of the death penalty. He also goes on to state that, "In the United States, as in other nations of the western world, 'the struggle about this punishment has been one between ancient and deeply rooted beliefs in retribution, atonement or vengeance on the one hand, and on the other, beliefs in the personal value and dignity of the common man... ".

This asks if retribution, and ancient practice, can be a universal law. If each man is on his own or takes the laws into his own hands, and acts on vengeance; there may be no justice. This is not what is best for society. Retribution may not be a determining factor when distributing justice. Using this formula of creation universal laws, which was first put forth by Kant, Brennan further goes on to show the death penalty is can not be a universal law. By killing a man that has wronged us, we remove his dignity.

This not only restates and reinforces the cruel and unusual clause that governs our justice system it also reinforces moral decisions and universal laws. Kant argues that freedom comes from rational beings, It is not enough to predict freedom of our own will, from whatever reason, if we have not sufficient grounds of predicting the same of all rational beings. For as morality serves as a law for is only because we are rational beings... Justice Marshall argues that if all citizens were properly informed it would be reasoned that the penalty of death would be considered shocking and unacceptable. Determining who shall be punished by no means requires approval of retribution as a general justification for that punishment. Justice Marshall states in his dissenting opinion.

It is the question whether retribution can provide moral justification for punishment. It simply defies belief to suggest that the death penalty is necessary to prevent the American people from taking the law into their own hands. Just as Justice Brennan has before, Marshall here fights retribution as cause for validity in the penalty of death. Using the same logic and formulas derived by Kant. Different examples and opinion but sill same results.

This case of Gregg vs. Georgia was an important trial to show us that we are forever redefining our standards and morals. Though our attitudes often changes they more often stay the same. This particular case holds this to some degree to be true. For may after their first publications, moral works here of Hobbes and Kant still help fuel some of the biggest debates in political, philosophical, and moral arenas.

Each side, majority and the opposing dissent refer back to the mighty giants that with their little pens strokes brought down the mighty oaks.