Argument Against Death Penalty

Question Description

Hello again!

This is my homework and since I am not excelling in Philosophy, I would like to ask whether my argument against Death Penalty is in favor with Utilitarianism. If not, please I would like you to review and rewrite my answer. Thank you.

Here are the instructions:

Please produce about 250-350 word (double spaced) paper arguing against the above argument and the death penalty.

Please appeal primarily to Kant’s or/and Utilitarian claims to support your points.

Please argue against this argument and the death penalty regardless of what you really think about the death penalty. Please do not offer any support for the death penalty.

The aim of this assignment is to practice how to use Kant’s and Utilitarian principles. If you argue against the argument below and the death penalty without any appeal to Kant’s and Utilitarian principles, you will not get a full credit for your work.

Do not write any introduction. Write straight to the point.

Pro Death Penalty Argument (Retentionist Argument):

Premise 1) If we keep the death penalty, we run the risk of needlessly eradicating the

lives of convicted murderers who might have been reformable (correctable).

Premise 2) If we abolish the death penalty we run the risk of some innocent people

becoming future victims of the murderers (for example, the prison guards).

Premise 3) Whether we choose to keep the death penalty or abolish it, there is a risk

that some human lives will be needlessly lost.

Premise 4) We have no right to risk (endanger) lives of the innocent people.

Conclusion 5) Therefore, it is our moral obligation to retain (keep) the death penalty.