I have decided to put this all on one post and it is intended for students on the PHI1010 European Philosophical Traditions 1, PHI2003 Modern Ethics, PHi3001 Legitimacy and Reasons modules.
PHi1010
By the end of consolidation week, you should have read Plato’s Theaetetus in its entirety, the extract from Sextus Empiricus (both) and be up to date with the tutorial readings. In order to further your understanding, I suggest a trip to the library with the reading suggestions for secondary material and a good keyword search in mind and read around the subject as well. You need to be able to quickly describe the problems with naive empiricism and have some idea of why we need a theory of reality in order to justify our use of knowledge-language.
PHi2003
You should have read Hobbes up to chapter 21 and have read a substantial amount of secondary literature. In groups or as individuals, I also want you to start posting some answers to the second workshop on the moral status of capital punishment found in Blackboard. Please add to the comments section below this post with your answers to the questions (at the end of Mill’s speech).
Phi3001
You should have read the relevant extracts from Rawls’s Theory of Justice and have an understanding of how his theory of justice is, according to him, more desirable/rational than alternatives. You must learn the principles by heart and understand them. Secondary material a gogo please. Also, I want you to start posting some answers after reading the workshop in BB on Sandel. (questions are here and refer to the numbers in the margins.) A really good article which will help your understanding of Rawls. Again, answers below please in the comments section. Let us try and get more answers than last time and your reward will be my pro-attitude towards you.
John Stuart Mill Workshop
1. Why do we punish individuals who transgress a law? What is the purpose of sanction?
We punish individuals who transgress a law as a deterrent to stop individuals from breaking the law. This punishment must be sanctioned in order to maintain that this punishment is a valid detterent, hence they need to carry out the threat and make examples out of people.
2. How might Hobbes justify punishment?
Hobbes’ theory of the social contract leads to Hobbes justifying punishment as “the agreed upon answer to violations of the basic norms of the social contract.”
3. On what basis does Mill defend the use of the death penalty? In what types of cases should it be used?
Mill defends the death penalty by asserting that on the grounds of the humanity it gives to the criminal, it is the least cruel mode to adequately deter them from the crime. Mill determined the death penalty as the least cruel mode of punishment due to it being so quick rather than a lifetime of suffering in life imprisonment.
The death penalty is the capital punishment, and equates as an adequate penalty to the action of murder. Mill says it should be only in the most atrocious cases.
“I defend this penalty, when confined to atrocious cases, on the very ground on which it is commonly attacked–on that of humanity to the criminal; as beyond comparison the least cruel mode in which it is possible adequately to deter from the crime.”
4. Mill states that a punishment’s “practical power depends far less on what it is than on what it seems.” Explain what he means by this. What implications does this have for how we punish?
The power of the deterrent – the death penalty, is stronger than the deterrent of a life of suffering in prison. We have a hierarchy of punishment according to the severity of the crime, but only save the death penalty for the worst crimes so that it is more effective as a deterrent.
5. Mill contrasts the death penalty and life imprisonment. What conclusions does he draw from this contrast? Do you agree with his conclusions?
Mill acknowledges that the death penalty provides a momentary point of pain and severity, and compares the long and unappealing life of life imprisonment. Mill asserts despite the unattraction of life imprisonment, it does not contain a moment of intense terrifying suffering, it is known in society as a milder punishment than death. In contrast, Mill concludes that life imprisonment leads to more suffering than the death penalty.
“There is not, I should think, any human infliction which makes an impression on the imagination so entirely out of proportion to its real severity as the punishment of death.”
We have concluded that the death penalty is the strongest deterrent, it does act on the mind of the innocent prior to their corruption into a criminal. Although life imprisonment nowadays does provide a decent quality of life to the prisoners, I think that the death penalty is the easy way out for the accused. Life imprisonment may not involve physical torture, but if the defendant has any sense of guilt, this will be punishment enough as they will mentally torture themselves over their actions.
6. Is Mill’s view consistent with utilitarianism?
Mill notes that our legal system is consistent with the utilitarian view that “It is better that ten guilty should escape than that one innocent person should suffer,” hence judges and juries must allow for the “the barest possibility of the prisoner’s innocence.”
Mill’s view is consistent with utilitarianism because the prisoner has caused harm to others, and hence the punishment is a consequence and deterrent for that action. To deter others from causing harm, this punishment must exist as this will consequently save other people from being harmed as potential criminals are deterred from acting.
7. Mill seems to downplay the importance and terribleness of death. Obviously this has implications for our views on the death penalty, but what implications does it have on our views of murder? Discuss.
It can be argued that the death penalty is murder. Therefore Mill would be downplaying the severity of murder in his defence of the death penalty.
On the contrary, Mill’s defence of the death penalty actually reiterates the severity of murder as he asserts that the only appropriate punishment for murder would be to assassinate the prisoner himself.
Very thoughtful answers. One thing that comes through is Mill’s concern with the perpetrator. We should also consider his or her suffering. But why? When you write a good essay, I give you a good mark. A bad one gets a bad mark. Isn’t this just? We get what we deserve.
1. Why do we punish individuals who transgress a law? What is the purpose of sanction?
We punish those who break the law to deter others in committing the same crimes. Keeping the law in place is important as it is there to maximise happiness in society. It is less likely that people will break the law if they fear the consequences, meaning that lesser people will dare to break the law.
2. How might Hobbes justify punishment?
We accept whatever rules the sovereign leader supposes on us because we have agreed to be governed for our benefit, and so we ought to follow them.
3. On what basis does Mill defend the use of the death penalty? In what types of cases should it be used?
Mill asserts that the death penalty has a great ‘deterrent force’ on the mind. Life imprisonment deprives the prisoner of all that makes life desirable. Due to this, Mill argues that capital punishment is ‘the least cruel mode’ of punishment too. Mill states that ‘aggravated murder is now practically the only crime which is punished with death’, and he agrees with this, under certain grounds i.e. ‘when the attendant circumstances suggest no palliation of the guilt’, ‘nothing to make it probable that the crime was an exception to his general character’ and he the is ‘unworthy to live among mankind’.
4. Mill states that a punishment’s “practical power depends far less on what it is than on what it seems.” Explain what he means by this. What implications does this have for how we punish?
To quote Mill: ‘efficacy of a punishment which acts principally through imagination’. It has a great deterrent force that acts in an insidious manner through the public and each individual’s mind, through fear of death.
5. Mill contrasts the death penalty and life imprisonment. What conclusions does he draw from this contrast? Do you agree with his conclusions?
Mill believes that life imprisonment would add to the total sum of misery more than the death penalty would, he writes that ‘consigning a man to the short pang of rapid death, and immuring him in a living tomb, there to linger out what may be a long life in the hardest and monotonous toil’.
6. Is Mill’s view consistent with utilitarianism?
Yes, Mill enrolls the death penalty as the punishment that provides minimal pain and suffering (in contrast to life in prison). It also acts as the greatest deterrent which means that the law will be upheld, meaning that happiness will be maximised or stabalized for the rest of the people in said society.
7. Mill seems to downplay the importance and terribleness of death. Obviously this has implications for our views on the death penalty, but what implications does it have on our views of murder? Discuss.
He who violates the right to life for another consequently forfeits the right to life for himself. If the murderer doesn’t respect the right to life, we won’t respect it in regards to them either. It is not a case of ‘killing someone because killing people is wrong’ which carries an inherent contradiction.