5 pages in length. The ethical debate over the death penalty is one of the most hotly contested political and social topics of all time. When one considers such concepts as altruism, Utilitarianism, Kant's Categorical Imperative and positive/negative duties, it becomes quite clear that the ethical implications of capital punishment can certainly go either way. Leonard Pitts, Jr. attempts to place a modicum of understanding upon the oftentimes indefinable nature of ethics in "Fitting End to Death Penalty," providing an insightful glance from both sides of the issue. Bibliography lists 5 sources.
Name of Research Paper File: LM1_TLCEthDP.rtf
Buy This Research Paper »
Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
Imperative and positive/negative duties, it becomes quite clear that the ethical implications of capital punishment can certainly go either way. Leonard Pitts, Jr. attempts to place a modicum of
understanding upon the oftentimes indefinable nature of ethics in Fitting End to Death Penalty, providing an insightful glance from both sides of the issue.
Pitts can relate firsthand to the ethical dilemma of the death penalty, inasmuch as his wifes brother was shot dead in a random act of violence. His gut
instinct, which mirrors virtually every other emotionally driven human being - was to seek revenge and justice for the dirty deed. However, this fervor was toned down quite considerably
after Pitts gave the subject some deep contemplation and came to realize that the penal system is tragically flawed when it comes to capital punishment. Understanding his change of
mind can more easily be achieved by looking at some of the worlds greatest thinkers. Characteristic of humanitys constant quest for the concept
of meaning, the journey of understanding has come to represent myriad things to myriad people, ultimately rendering any universal explanation virtually impossible. The problem with meaning as it relates
to Kantian duty is attempting to successfully pinpoint a single yet comprehensive connotation to its concept; however, this cannot be achieved as long as any two individuals harbor decidedly different
interpretations. It has been said that the inherent clash between a societys wants and needs derives from being a "product of our own imperfect understanding of nature, of our
ignorance of how to harmonize our activities with the worlds script" (Nehamas 40). What, if any, moral and ethical obligation is humanity under within the scope of existence?
Back to Research Paper Results