Exam 3 Notes“Selection from the Metaphysics of Morals” by Kant- The right to punish=the right a ruler has against a subject to inflict pain upon him becauseof his having committed a crime- Public Crime: Transgression of public law which makes someone who commits the crimeunfit to be a citizen (endanger the commonwealth and not just an individual persono Mean Character o Violent Character- Private Crime: Embezzlement- Punishment by a court-can never be inflicted merely as a means to promote some other good for the criminal himself for the criminal himself or for civil society (only because he has committed a crime)----human being can never be treated merely as a means to the purposes of another or be put among the objects of rights to things. He must previously have been found punishable before any thought can be given to drawing from his punishment something of use for himself or his fellow citizens- Natural punishment-vice punishes itself and which the legislator does not take into account- Accordingly whatever underserved evil you inflict upon another, that you inflict upon yourself- EQUALITY- Law of retribution can specify the quality and quantity of punishment- Jus talionis: the right of retaliation---what is required is that the pain inflicted on the criminal should be equivalent to the pain inflicted on the victim- If you steal from another, you steal from yourself---stealing—criminals make property insecure in general—he should be punished by being derived of his property - But one cannot torture before killing if they tortured because we stoop to their level, we become partially contaminated by the very evil that we respond to---because the murdereris still a person—still an end in himself- Mistake to mix up retribution and revenge - Morality does not require use to have all our wishes respected- We respect them that she take responsibility for what he or she did- In killing a murderer, the state takes it upon itself to extract his humanity from him in the most final way-“Woman Blinded by Spurned Man Invokes Islamic Retribution"“Justice, Civilization, and the Death Penalty” by Reimann Though death penalty is a just punishment, abolition of the death penalty is part of the civilizing mission of modern statesI. The challenge to the Abolitionist - van den Haag argues for the death penalty - Conrad argues against---killing a murdered is doing the same wrong to himo But killing in war or self-defense is not seen as morally wrong, thus killingcan be say is wrong, but killing a murderer is not doing the same wrong to him, because he is guilty o Possibility of killing an innocent person and impossible to correct this tragic mistake- Invariably some cost that is prohibitive such that if capital punishment were necessary to save the lives of potential murder victims, there must be a point at which the number of saved victims would be large enough to justify the risk of executing an innocent - Executing an offender would mean that the offenders are incapable of change o No punishment, whether on retributive or deterrent grounds, need imply belief the total evilness of the punishee II. Just Deserts and Just Punishmentsa. Death Penalty is a just punishment for murder because of lex talionis: an eye for an eye i. Lex tailonis is a version of retribution---doctrine that the offender should be paid back with suffering he deserves because of the evil he has done---inserts that the injury equivalent to that he imposed is what the offender deservesii. Proportional retributivism—fits or proportionalit, such that the worst crime is punished with society’s worst penalty iii. Justice of lex talionish—by focusing on the striking affinity between it andthe golden rule (do unto others as you would have other do unto you)______________________________________________________________________________“Famine, Affluence, and Morality” by Peter Singer writes this in 1971, people are dying in East Bengal from lack food, shelter, and medical care- Suffering and Death is not inevitable, and not unavoidable in any fatalistic sense of the term - Constant poverty, a cyclone, and a civil war have turned at least nine million people into refugees, however rich nations do have the capacity to offer assistance to reduce the suffering to smaller nations- Human beings have not made the necessary decision to end/prevent this kind of suffering (no significant level of relief funds, not written to their parliament requesting governmentassistance, no demonstrations, or done anything else directed towards providing for the refugees- Government level=no government has given the sort of massive aid that would enable he refugees to survive for more than a few dayso British government has given the most, but values a supersonic transportation more than thirty times as it values the lives of the nine million refugeeso Australia: Gives money, but less than 1/12 for the opera houseo Total Estimated given=65,000,000 pounds and they need 464,000,000 pounds to keep refugees alive for one yearo India needs a min. of 300,000,000 pounds, assistance will not be forthcoming this will have to choose between letting the refugees die or diverting funds from their own development program which means that more people will starve in the future(their own)- Bengal is his present case: present concern and the size of the problem has ensured that it has been given enough publicity- “I shall argue that the way people in relatively affluent countries react to a situation like that in Bengal cannot be justified; indeed, the whole way we look at moralissues-our moral conceptual scheme-needs to be altered, and with, the way of life that has come to be taken for granted in our society o Singer will not of course to be morally neutral. He shall, however, try to argue forthe moral position that he takes, so that anyone who accepts certain assumptions, to be made explicit, will he hopes accept his conclusion- Assumption: Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad (he shall not argue from this view)- If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally to do ito Without sacrificing…= without causing any else of comparable bad to happen, or doing something that is wrong in itself, or failing to promote some moral good, comparable in significance to the bad thing we can prevent o Drowning childo If