Extended Essay in Philosophy:

Debating Capital Punishment in Reference to Utilitarianism

RESEARCH QUESTION:

In reference to the Philosophy of Utilitarianism, should a government classify a

person/criminal to be unworthy of life?

Word Count:​ 3971

Subject: Philosophy

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF

CONTENTS...............................................................................................................2

INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................3

UTILITARIANISM

OVERVIEW.............................................................................................4-6

ARGUMENT IN FAVOUR OF CAPITAL

PUNISHMENT.................................................7-10

ARGUMENT AGAINST CAPITAL

PUNISHMENT.........................................................11-14

CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................15-16

WORKS CITED..........................................................................................................................17

2
 For centuries, capital punishment has seized the world as a method of severe punishment

for those who are deserving of them. However, as of recently, the debate has arisen on whether

this punishment is morally and logically correct. Arguments in favour of capital punishments in

these debates appear to hold similarities to John Stuart Mill’s theory of Utilitarianism, an ethical

theory that states that the best course of action is that one that maximises utility. A theory

developed in the mid-1800s yet leaders and governments still follow parts of the doctrine today.

The relevance of these subjects as well as an addition to the argument of capital punishment is

what shows the importance of the question: In reference to the Philosophy of Utilitarianism,

should a government classify a person/criminal to be unworthy of life? According to the

Merriam-Webster dictionary, reference is defined as “the action of mentioning or alluding to

something” (Merriam-Webster.com). For simplicity, this essay will be focusing on the

government of the United States, a country currently divided on the idea of capital punishment.

3
 In order to analyse when a government should classify a person to be unworthy of life

according to Utilitarianism, one must first understand what Utilitarianism entails. According to

John Stuart Mill’s ​Utilitarianism and the 1868 Speech on Capital Punishment​, the concept of

Utilitarianism is “The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals ‘utility’ or the ‘greatest

happiness principle’ holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness;

wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Mill 7). This can be interpreted to mean

that Utilitarianism is a theory based on morals, in which the morality of an action can be

determined by what Mill states as the “greatest happiness principle”, where actions are deemed

as moral by how much overall “happiness” that they achieve, and the more happiness that is

achieved, then the more moral that action would become, whereas the less happiness that that

action achieves, then the less more the action becomes. An action that generates a net

unhappiness would then be deemed as immoral, and the more net unhappiness that the action

generates will be inversely proportional to how moral that action is deemed. Mill also provides a

definition for happiness and unhappiness, where “happiness is intended pleasure and the absence

of pain; by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure” (Mill 7). A keyword to notice in this

definition is “intended”, meaning that in order for the action to be deemed moral by the

generation of happiness, the action must be intended, otherwise, the action would not be counted

as a moral action, because the motive to cause happiness was not there. In the case where there is

a moral decision where both sides result in happiness, then the decision where the most

happiness is obtained is the most desirable action. As Mill puts it, “If one of the two {pleasures}

is by those who are competently acquainted with both, placed so far above the other that they

prefer it, even though knowing it to be attended with a greater amount of discontent, and would

4
not resign it for any quantity of the other pleasure which their nature is capable of, we are

justified in ascribing to the preferred enjoyment a superiority in quality so far outweighing

quantity as to render it, in comparison, of small account” (Mill 8-9). If this principle sounds

familiar or obvious, it is because we as a society generally do look at many decisions in terms of

a Utilitarian point of view, except we may simplify it down much more and ignore many of the

intricacies of the concept and it becomes simplified to doing the greatest good for the greatest

number. Examples of this prospect of the greatest good for the greatest number can be seen with

the infamous “trolley problem” or even with biblical connections, wherein the book of John

18:14, it states that “Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jewish leaders that it would be

good if one man died for the people” (John 18:14), showing a classic Utilitarian perspective,

where if one man dies, it saves the rest of the people.This provides an example of how the

concept of Utilitarianism is used historically and in the modern day and it can be linked to how

the concept relates to capital punishment. A question to ask is according to the concept of

Utilitarianism, does capital punishment truly achieve the greatest happiness principle and bring

the greatest good for the greatest number? According to Mill, the simple answer is yes. In his

April 1868 Speech on Capital Punishment, Mill states that “When there has been brought home

to anyone, by conclusive evidence, the greatest crime known to the law [murder]; and when the

attendant circumstances suggest no palliation of the guilt, no hope that the culprit may even yet

not be unworthy to live among mankind, nothing to make it probable that the crime was an

exception to his general character rather than a consequence of it, then I confess it appears to me

that to deprive the criminal of the life of which he has proved himself to be unworthy - solemnly

to blot him out from the fellowship of mankind and from the catalogue of the living - is the most

5
appropriate, as it is certainly the most impressive, mode in which society can attach to so great a

crime the penal consequences which for the security of life it is indispensable to annex to it”

(Mill 65). Here Mill states that if a criminal has deliberately committed murder, with clear

intention and no remorse, then this criminal has proved himself to be unworthy of life, and

therefore, for the greatest good, must be killed because society must attach this heinous crime to

the ultimate punishment. What underlies the message, which attaches itself to the concept of

Utilitarianism, is that by attaching the greatest punishment to the greatest crime, it acts as a

deterrent against the crime and in addition, by inflicting capital punishment on those who have

committed the unspeakable, then society would no longer have to deal with them, creating an

overall benefit for society as they no longer must worry about such a criminal being among them

and no longer must fear. What Mill did here was provide an extreme as his argument for capital

punishment. Mill stated that a criminal must deliberately commit murder, with clear intention

and no remorse, yet in reality, it is difficult identify such an individual, especially legally with

clear evidence. However, it does support his concept and the argument for capital punishment.

The argument can also be used for those who are not as an extreme as the individual that Mill

has described if it is adjusted to not be so blatant. Nevertheless, the point remains clear: whoever

commits the most horrible of acts must equally have the most extreme of punishments for the

benefit of society.

6
 As the question asks when should a government classify a person to be unworthy of life,

ultimately the idea of justice is called into the debate, on when it would be considered just

behaviour or even if it is considered just behaviour to end someone’s life. If justice is to be

defined as “the quality of being just, impartial, or fair”, then the question is when does such

action meet these requirements? If we look at the history of capital punishment, we can see that

the practice has existed throughout the human race since the mid to late Bronze Age, which

translates to 1500 B.C. to this very day. Examples can include from ancient and imperial China

to Babylon, to 7th century Athens, to the British empire, all the way to colonial America. As can

clearly be seen, there is a historical precedence for capital punishment. But why did all of these

great nations and empires elect to use capital punishment? It is not that these nations and empires

elected to end the lives of their citizens out of spite, but instead, the deterrent of capital

punishment, choosing a punishment to meet the crime, and when looking at it from a Utilitarian

point of view, when that individual has proven themselves to not be useful to the government,

and therefore disrupts and negatively impacts the happiness of that nation and/or empire as a

whole, is the point at which these nations and empires have chosen to inflict death upon their

criminals. This can be seen in these nations and empires with crimes with the classification of

crimes to either be considered capital or not capital, as in certain crimes would have the

individual either put to death or they would face some other form of punishment, adhering to the

concept of choosing a punishment to meet the crime. Although this may seemingly be a basic

and obvious concept by today’s standards, if we were to look at 7th century Athens, we can see

that all crime, no matter how trivial, was punishable by death. An explanation for such can be

that it is not only used as a deterrent to committing crimes but also that the very act of a

7
committing a crime in the first place breaks the social contract, a claim made by John Locke,

where according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states, “the result of a social

contract where people in the state of nature conditionally transfer some of their rights to the

government in order to better ensure the stable, comfortable enjoyment of their lives, liberty, and

property. Since governments exist by the consent of the people in order to protect the rights of

the people and promote the public good, governments that fail to do so can be resisted and

replaced with new governments” (Tuckness) Therefore, the government has a responsibility to

uphold the laws that promote the general happiness of its people, and in turn, the people must

transfer some of their rights, such as the ability to murder others or to steal, etc.. However, when

an individual violates these laws, they negatively upset the general happiness of the people and

this can be seen as breaking the social contract, by which, the government must respond

accordingly to ensure the the overall happiness of the people is to not continue to be disturbed.

Therefore, in Athens, this may be the reason by which any crime was punishable by death. This

method of reasoning can also fit the Utilitarian viewpoint when looked at the perspective of if the

government held true to the social contract and promoted actions that benefit the majority and

promote happiness, then if an individual was to disrupt the overall happiness by disregarding the

rules that the government has put forward and in doing so has broken the social contract, then the

government has no responsibility to the individual and in order to protect the overall happiness

of the people, the government must rid the people of the problem, which could entail capital

punishment. Additionally, capital punishment follows the basic Utilitarian idea that it promotes

the most happiness for the most people. Capital punishment allows for the victims of the

perpetrators who have committed acts of wrongdoing onto them and onto society to see

8
retribution for their actions. Not only does the death of the perpetrator allow for society to see a

person pay for their heinous actions, in so be comforted, but it also allows for society and the

victims to feel safer. Once the perpetrator has died, then the victims and society do not have to

worry about such horrible and dangerous individuals being able to hurt them once again, whether

because of a prison escape or from being released. It brings a sense of closure to the victims and

society, how death is the one thing that can stop the perpetrator from ever hurting another person

or peer again. In David K. Garfield’s ​The Death Penalty: Capital Punishment in the USA​,

Garfield brings up that for the worst the crime, the better it seems to have retribution and capital

punishment. “They [Supporters of the Death Penalty] are often far more focused on the

retribution angle, and the satisfaction it is seen to deliver to the families and relatives of the

victims of the most serious crimes. When we hear of the most heinous crimes, it sometimes

seems that capital punishment is the only answer. For example; when we hear about the gang

rape, beating, biting, mutilation and murder of women in India and other parts of the world, from

an emotional perspective it becomes very difficult to argue against capital punishment”

(Garfield) To inflict capital punishment against these individuals is the best way to bring

retribution and closure to those who have suffered, to try to bring the most happiness out of a

horrible situation. But capital punishment does not only help and bring happiness to society and

the victims of crimes but also, to some extent, the perpetrator of those crimes. Without capital

punishment, society and the government must devise some way in order to prescribe an

appropriate punishment to the perpetrator, some punishment to meet the crime and strong enough

to act as a deterrent for others to replicate such a crime. However, if such a punishment was

developed, it may very well be harsher and cruller than death, otherwise, it would be less

9
effective and not enough of a deterrent. To ensure that such ineffective punishment does not

occur, a government must elect to go for the harsher punishment. If said punishment was

considered too harsh then at that point, capital punishment would be considered a mercy. If

capital punishment was considered a mercy, then it would also bring happiness to the perpetrator,

where they would be granted mercy for their crimes. John Stuart Mill puts it best in his speech,

“If, in our horror of inflicting death, we endeavour to devise some punishment for the living

criminal which shall act on the human mind with a deterrent force at all comparable to that of

death, we are driven to inflictions less severe indeed in appearance, and therefore less

efficacious, but far more cruel in reality. Few, I think, would venture to propose, as a punishment

for aggravated murder, less than imprisonment with hard labour for life; that is the fate to which

a murderer would be consigned by the mercy which shrinks from putting him to death” (Mill

65). By not being too harsh of a punishment for the persecuted, capital punishment is considered

a mercy and by not being too lenient, capital punishment benefits those affected by the actions of

the prosecuted. Therefore, capital punishment benefits all parties, to not only bring retribution

and closure to society and the victims but also to have mercy on the perpetrators in a way that

benefits society as a whole, thereby maximising the happiness of all parties.

10
 It can also be argued that a government does not have the right to decide when a person

should die and if they do, then to a minuscule extent and that capital punishment is not effective

in its aims so in fact, it does not maximise happiness, but can be considered a way to increase

unhappiness, which would make capital punishment wrong underneath the theory of

Utilitarianism. Because this essay will be focusing more capital punishment under the United

States government, we can see that an argument against capital punishment where the

government does not have to right to decide when or if a person should die is with the United

States’s own Declaration of Independence. In this Declaration, it states that “We hold these

truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator

with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men”. The Declaration states

that all men are equal, and have the right to Life and that governments are instituted to secure

these rights. Therefore, in order to secure the right of Life for men, a government cannot take

away this right through capital punishment. Even though an individual may commit a crime, that

does not give the government the right to take away their unalienable rights, as it is no one’s

right to take away another’s rights. It does not matter whether the individual has committed a

crime or not, as they are created as equal and so they have the right to life because of this, and it

is the government’s rule to protect this right, not take it away. It would be through this adherence

to the basic principle that all men are created equal with certain unalienable rights that is what

truly promotes the the greatest happiness. For if the people's’ rights were to be violated by the

government, it can be seen throughout history the unhappiness that spreads throughout society

with rebellions, revolts, all the way to revolutions and the toppling of the current government.

11
For under John Locke’s social contract, the people under a government may only surrender some

of their freedoms and submit to the authority in exchange for protection of their remaining rights,

such as of life. If a government does not protect the remaining rights of the people, then the

people are obligated to topple the government in favour of a new government. This can be seen

in France, Cuba, Russia, etc. and the only way to avoid such a disaster is to respect the peoples’

unalienable rights, which includes the right to Life, and in doing so, there will be more overall

happiness. Capital punishment also creates more unhappiness because of the way it affects the

economy. Administering capital punishment is not a cheap process. According to ​The Death

Penalty: Capital Punishment in the USA​, “Over $4Billion dollars has been spent on

administering capital punishment in California since 1978..... The state of Maryland spent

$186Million executing 5 prisoners” (Garfield). Having states spend this much money only

increases the amount of overall unhappiness, especially when they could be using such money to

benefit the general populace such as housing, homeless shelters, etc.. The fact that capital

punishment costs so much for the states is something that must be considered when proposing

that capital punishment generates the most happiness out of the two options. The question is does

the amount of money already wasted and would continue and accelerate to be wasted be

worthwhile for capital punishment or would using the money to benefit society in order ways

generate the most happiness? The answer is no. The money that would be used for capital

punishment could be put into other parts of society such as rehabilitation and would benefit the

society as a whole without any loss of life. Another problem with capital punishment is one

which has been shown to be a problem for the modern day United States of America, and that is

most prevalent in states where hundreds of people have been sentenced to death, and that

12
problem is where innocent people have been sentenced to death. According to a section written

by Stephen B. Bright in the book, ​Debating the Death Penalty: Should America have Capital

Punishment?,​ “innocent people have been sentenced to die based on such things as mistaken

eyewitness identifications, false confessions, the testimony of partisan experts who render

opinions that are not supported by science, failure of police and prosecutors to turn over evidence

of innocence, and testimony of prisoners who get their own charges dismissed by testifying that

the accused admitted the crime to them. Even the guilty are sentenced to death as opposed to life

imprisonment without the possibility of parole not because the committed the worst crimes but

because of where they happen to be prosecuted, the incompetence of their court-appointed

lawyers, their race, or the race of their victim” (bedau and Cassell 153). This shows how capital

punishment allows for the possibility of mistakes, and to sentence to death an innocent person or

to sentence a criminal to death when they do not deserve it does not increase happiness in

whatever way, but instead increases unhappiness, which under the Utilitarian concept is morally

wrong. This possibility of a mistake is something that even John Stuart Mills acknowledges in

his ​1868 Speech on Capital Punishment,​ where he says “There is one argument against capital

punishment, even in extreme cases, which I cannot deny to have weight - on which my

honourable Friend justly laid great stress, and which never can be entirely got rid of. It is this -

that if by an error of justice an innocent person is put to death, the mistake can never be

corrected; all compensation, all reparation for the wrong is impossible” (Mill 69). This is one of

the main problems with capital punishment, that it is irreversible. Humans are inherently flawed

and make mistakes, however, if such a mistake were made where someone innocent or not

worthy of death was indeed to be sentenced to death, then that is a mistake that would be forever.

13
Such a mistake would not reflect well on the government or the society and would overall cause

the people to revolt against what they rightfully considered unjust, and that is the killing of an

innocent person. The people would call for an end to capital punishment, and because of this, the

government must comply in order to obtain the solution which would gain the most happiness.

These are the reasons why capital punishment does not increase happiness, but rather increase

unhappiness, making it a morally wrong action under the concept of Utilitarianism.

14
 This essay started with the question: In reference to the Philosophy of Utilitarianism,

should a government classify a person/criminal to be unworthy of life? Throughout the essay, the

concept of what Utilitarianism is was explored, showing how it was used in modern day and in

history, along with how it is simplified and boiled down and how it relates to capital punishment.

Then, the essay transitioned to arguments in favour of governments being able to classify people

to be unworthy of life and to administer capital punishment. During these arguments, the theory

of Utilitarianism was referenced along with the author of the theory, John Stuart Mills, which

supported the argument. Additionally, the history of the death penalty and why it was

administered and why it would contribute to overall happiness was discussed. The social contract

was referenced and the ideas of retribution and deterrents were discussed. The essay then

transitioned to arguments against governments being able to classify people to be unworthy of

life and to administer capital punishment. The Declaration of Independence was discussed in

these arguments along with the idea of unalienable rights. The cost of capital punishment was

referenced and the possibility of administering capital punishment to an innocent person or one

who does not deserve it was discussed. Overall, in considering both arguments and the moral

doctrine of utilitarianism, what appears to be the best option to generate the maximum amount of

happiness would be to not for allow capital punishment and to not allow for governments to

classify a person/criminal to be unworthy of life. Those, who John Stuart Mills described as,

“when the attendant circumstances suggest no palliation of the guilt, no hope that the culprit may

even yet not be unworthy to live among mankind, nothing to make it probable that the crime

[heinous crimes such as aggravated murder] was an exception to his general character rather than

a consequence of it” (Mill 65). However, with such an limited situation, where is is nigh

15
impossible to be sure of intent and remorse and how much a life is worth, with consideration of

both arguments, governments being able to classify a person to be unworthy of life would bring

amount less happiness especially in terms of rights, the economy, and society.

16
 Works Cited

Bedau, Hugo Adam, and Paul G. Cassell. ​Debating the Death Penalty: Should America Have

Capital Punishment? : the Experts on Both Sides Make Their Case​. Oxford, Oxford UP,

2005.

"The Declaration of Independence." ​US History,​ Independence Hall Association, 1999,

www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/. Accessed 10 Dec. 2018.

Garfield, David K. ​The Death Penalty: Capital Punishment in the USA​. United States, David K.

Garfield, 2015.

John 18.​ NIV, Biblica, 1973. ​Bible Gateway​, Biblica,

www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+18&version=NIV. Accessed 10 Dec.

2018.

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary​. Merriam-Webster, 2018. ​Merriam-Webster's

Collegiate Dictionary,​

www.merriam-webster.com/news-trend-watch/marvel-reveals-avengers-endgame-20181

207. Accessed 10 Dec. 2018.

Mill, John Stuart. ​Utilitarianism​. Digireads.com Publishing, 2017.

Mill, John Stuart, and George Sher. ​Utilitarianism​. Indianapolis, Hackett Publishing Co, 2002.

Tuckness, Alex. "Locke's Political Philosophy." ​Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy​,

Metaphysics Research Lab, 9 Nov. 2005, plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/.

Accessed 10 Dec. 2018.

17