Capital punishment murder

Sample Answer

Philosophical Arguments on State Killing

The philosophical debate presented in the video, featuring the views of Ernest van den Haag and Jeffrey Reiman, centers on whether the state should refrain from executing a criminal, regardless of the crime:

The Argument Against Execution (Reiman's View)

Philosopher Jeffrey Reiman argues that even if a murderer deserves to die [08:17], executing them is still the wrong thing to do [08:38].

Civilizing Message: By sparing the life of a murderer, the state communicates the "valuable and inalienable nature of a human life" [08:54].

Moral Horror: This act of restraint communicates the "horror that we feel at allowing one person complete control over another to take their lives" [09:03].

Deterrence by Example: Reiman suggests that sending this "civilizing message" may contribute to a less violent society and thus actually decrease the number of murders [09:21]-[09:37]. This argument implies that even legally sanctioned killing is an act society must move beyond to be truly civilized.

The Argument For Execution (Van den Haag's View)

Ernest van den Haag argues that the death penalty is justified if it serves as a deterrent that saves innocent lives.

Risking Lives: He contends that society has "no right to risk additional future victims of murder" for the sake of sparing convicted murderers [05:31].

Greater Deterrent: Since death is considered the most feared punishment [04:55], it is reasonable to expect it to be a more effective deterrent than any lesser punishment, such as life in prison [04:42].

Net Gain: If the death penalty prevents even one murder, it results in a "net gain" for society, justifying the cost of execution [03:17]-[03:35].