Should death penaltys be allowed or not?
Deathpenaltys are today used worldwide, including three of the biggest democracys in the world, India, USA and Japan.
According to Utilitarianism, we should take action in that way that the consequences of our actions becomes as good as possible. The utilititarianistic ethic is therfore dependent upon the consequences. The action is good only if its result, the consecuences, are good.
What a Utilitarianist says about deathpenalty depends on what arguments that are brought up, and on what consecuenses it might cause. The action itself isn´t therefore interesting for a utilitarianist. There is advocates both for and against death penaltys in utilitarianism. An example for an spokesman for deathpenalty could be that the one who comitted the crime, e.g murded someone no longer would be able to relapse and do it again – the consecuenses of this would then be that people are spared suffering. It also sets off that a penalty like that should be so terryfing and scare people that are about to comitt shuch crimes as killing another human being or other serious offences. Someone that are about to, e.g kill smoebody, when they know that the penalty for the crime is death they shold be scared out of it. And that would stop the crime, and in this case, according to utilitarianism, maximise happiness in the world since people are spared their suffering. And also that the spared suffering is hugher than the suffering from the ones that are ordered to deathpenalty.
The argument: What if a innocent puts to death?
Utilitarianists in favour of death penaltys says that it is an adjustment of consecuenses you have to make. If you have an justice scalar, and put one innocent man on one side and then 100s of violent and murders on the other side, than justice still says that this innocent man should be put tp death together with this innocent man. It would be unacceptable to let these 100s of men go just because of might be innocent of a...