Capital Punishment: Why the Death Penalty is Morally Permissible

Karina Morgan
April 13, 2010
Professor Mark Reynolds
PHI 206 Sec. 04
Word Count: 1,910

Syllogism for Argument:

1. Every human has a right to life 2. But this right is not absolute because a person’s life can be overridden for good reasons 3. So the right of life does not hold in every situation no matter what 4. One of these situations includes taking the life of another innocent human 5. Therefore, it is morally permissible to set the right to life aside, and use the death penalty, if they took the life of an innocent human.

Outline

I. The Death Penalty
-Thesis- Although all humans have the right to life, there are certain situations that can overrule this right, such as taking the life of an innocent human. Since the right of life does not hold in every situation and if an innocent human’s life is taken, then it is morally permissible to set the right to life aside and use the death penalty on the person who committed murder.

II. Pro-Death Penalty A. Retribution a. The death penalty is the best way in order to serve justice to convicted murderers of innocent people.
b. The families and friends of victims will feel more secure if justice is served.
c. There will be no worry about the murderer being able to commit more murders or to have any chance of receiving parole. B. Deterrence b. If the death penalty is continuously used in all states then it will prevent other murders from occurring in the future. c. Death penalty can also prevent future murders from convicted murderers because they will no longer have the opportunity to murder again. C. Utilitarianism view d. The death of one murder can ultimately save lives of innocents and is for the greater good. III. Abolitionists (Opposed to