Aristotle & Mill on Capital Punishment

Aristotle & bombers credit on Capital Punishment Brianna Lelli Hugh hero sandwicher Paper 2 upshot 4 October 17th 2011 Capital Punishment is a moral quarrel in todays society. It is the judicial execution of criminals judged hangdog of nifty offenses by the state, or in other words, the final stage penalisation. The first launch death penalty laws rump date back to the Eighteenth coke B. C. and the ethical debates towards this issue puddle compriseed just as long. There is a constant pro-con debate closely this issue, and philosophers like Aristotle and factory have their give birth take on this controversy as well.Aristotle is against with child(p) penalisation, while poor boy believes it is chastely allowable. Let me start off with Aristotle. In the Nicomachean Ethics sustain there isnt a chapter dedicated to his position on crown punishment, but as a whole, we get an idea of his position against it. For practice session when he says, every state of soul i s naturally related to and about whatever naturally checks it better or worse and pleasures and pains make tribe base, from pursuing and avoiding the premature ones, at the wrong time, in the wrong ways, or whatever other distinctions of that sort atomic number 18 needed in an account.These bad effects of pleasure and pain ar the reason why people actually define the virtues as ways of being immune and undisturbed by pleasures and pains. (Book 2, 3. 11) Aristotle knows its in peoples genius to know good from wrong, and people strive to be virtuous because that is the highest good. advancedeous actions are what people strive for, however they sometimes do the opposite. These actions are called vices which can basically fall into the same category as swell crimes or capital offenses which are the crimes that can be penalized by death.Aristotle believes that no matter how terrible a person acts, they have the potential to stamp down it and become virtuous. Everybody has the capability to do well and achieve happiness hold back in to Aristotle. People achieve this happiness through their actions and decisions, and we make these decisions by reasoning. Aristotles beliefs about human character are almost down to a science. Everything we do has a reason why, and every living being has the cognitive content to reason. Some people reason to be virtuous but others are vicious and commit crimes such as rape, collide with, and treason, ect.Aristotle believes in punishing these wicked crimes, but more importantly, reforming those who commit these offenses through corrective treatments. He believes that since everybody has the capacity to be virtuous, that everybody has the capacity to reason and reform from mistakes. Aristotle would hate to check off a person with such potential in biography be sentenced to death just because of a bad mistake. He believes the one who did the crime politic has a value in society and does not deserve to die.In consent t o Aristotles ethics, it would never be morally tolerable to kill soulfulness who still has potential to be virtuous, no matter what circumstance. Aristotle believes vicious acts should be punished with fair and equal penalties. He has a whole conjecture on justice, which is where we get the basis of his ideas towards capital punishment. In his opinion, the death penalty can never be thought of as morally permissible because it is immoral, unconstitutional, and irrevocable. John Stuart Mill, on the other hand, does not share this belief.He is in foul of the death penalty for multiple reasons. A major topic Mill focuses on is human nature. He believes all humans know the divagation between whats right and whats wrong, but he come backs its in humans nature to want to sin and run short the law. People want to break the law just because its there. That is rive of being a human. Sinning is the wrong thing to do, while the right thing to do is whatever produces the most good. Whet her people chose to sin or strive for ultimate ends of pleasure, they will be rewarded or punished for their decisions.In Mills Utilitarianism, he says With many, the test of justice in penal painful sensation is that the punishment should be proportioned to the offence meaning that it should be exactly thrifty by the moral guilt of the culprit (whatever be their standard for measure moral guilt) the con officeration, what amount of punishment is necessary to deter from the offence, having nothing to do with the question of justice, in their estimation. (IV, 49) Which basically means that the punishment must fit the crime.Mill has an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth standpoint. If a person commits a terrible crime, they are nowhere near reaching a wanted end, nor do they have capacity to be virtuous, as Aristotle would say. If mortal is guilty of murder, then life in jail is too mild of a punishment for the crime he committed. It goes the other way around too. If somebody is guilty of theft, then life in jail may be too hard of a punishment for that particular crime. Mill believes the that efficient punishment is one that is exactly equal to the crime.He doesnt think a murderer should be allowed to live on with the potential to murder again. Another thing Mill focuses on is general resolutions among a society. He believes the only way to find desirable pleasure is to ask people and get a general response. So if you asked the family of a murder dupe what they would like to see happen to the murderer, a probable general response would be to have him sentenced to death as well, and that is exactly what should happen. We know that Aristotle would refute capital punishment and Mill is in support of it.Neither Aristotle nor Mill is right or wrong, both their ideas are just opinions of what is morally permissible. The thing about morals is that they can mean something unalike to everybody. They arent a part of human nature morals are brought up through experience and surroundings. Aristotle and Mill lived in very different times. perhaps Mill had a personal experience where he dealt with proper punishment, which could have shaped what he felt was fair or moral. The same can be said for Aristotle. Even today, the debate about capital punishment exists.Many factors go into peoples side of the argument theyre on. around any argument can be shifted to support each side of the capital punishment debate. So you have to consider what was important in society during Aristotles sprightliness around 330 B. C. and Mills lifetime in the late 1800s. Itd be quite shocking if the ii philosophers shared beliefs on this side since they are from two completely different worlds. Another thing to consider is the definition of morally permissible, because permissible doesnt always mean right.For instance, just because Mill believes its morally permissible to have capital punishment, that doesnt necessarily mean he would kill every person he felt d id something vicious. Neither Aristotle nor Mill is right or wrong, they just based their morals on their experiences. Aristotles main concern is virtue, and if a person has capacity to be virtuous, their life should never be ended no matter the circumstance, whether theyre ill, old, handicapped, or even vicious. Mill has the eye for an eye stand point and feels all punishment should fit the crime equally.In todays society we see a little bit of both Aristotle and Mills theories when it comes to capital punishment. It is not typically our method of punishment in our time, however it does exist if the crime is serious enough. Personally, I agree with Mill more on this issue, just because I think its fair to get allow for punishment, but like I said, it all comes down to the morals of the individual. What happens in the world around us shapes our values and morals. Opinions are never wrong, and incomplete are morals.