The Execution of Steven J. Hayes: Morally Acceptable, Justifiable

The Execution of Steven J. Hayes: Morally Acceptable, Justifiable

In this essay, I will argue that Kant provides us with compelling arguments that exemplify why capital punishment is morally acceptable in the case of Steven J. Hayes. Though the argument put forth by Utilitarians in favor of Hayes's execution is also convincing, it encounters the problem of epistemology. Deontology avoids this problem, and, thereby, offers a stronger argument for Hayes's execution.

Kant's Moral Theory

I will explicate the Universal Law Formulation (ULF) and the Humanity Formulation (HF) of the Categorical Imperative to illustrate why Kant would find the execution of Hayes morally acceptable. Kant asserts that our moral obligations are based on the Categorical Imperative, which says that the right thing to do is "to act from motives that everyone, everywhere could live by" (TRTD 62).

The ULF requires us to act according to the maxim that we can simultaneously will to become a universal law (TRTD 63). An act is morally acceptable if it passes the four step decision procedure. The first step is to formulate the maxim, which, in this case, is: I will execute a criminal (ex: Hayes) if he/she committed murder in order to produce equivalent justice for the crime (EMP 142). The universal law, then, is: it is acceptable to execute criminals if they committed murder in order to produce justice for their crimes. Capital punishment is appropriate in this situation because it penalizes Hayes proportionately to the seriousness of his crime (EMP 142). This universal law is fully conceivable in a world governed by this law, for it is not self-contradictory (EMP 129). Capital punishment could hold as a universal law of nature and be consistent with itself. Finally, we can rationally will to live in a world governed by this law, because it is possible to live in a just society, where people are held accountable for their actions. The execution of Hayes passes the four step decision process of the ULF. Therefore, the act of putting Hayes to death is morally acceptable.

The Humanity Formulation requires us to treat humanity, whether yourself or others, always as an end and never as a means only. Putting Hayes to death acknowledges that he is a rational human being--responsible and accountable for his behavior (EMP 144). In short, executing Hayes is one way of treating him with dignity, or "as an end" (EMP 144). Therefore, putting Hayes to death is a morally acceptable act.

Kant's stance on capital punishment stems from a deontological theory, which is exclusively concerned with normative rules rather than the consequences of an action. The motives behind the action determine whether the action is right or wrong. Supporters of Kantian thought would identify the "horrific," "vicious," and "brutal" sexual assaults and murder of the Petit family as important facts to consider because they may be a baseline for the type of punishment that Hayes should receive (Glaberson). Kant would also consider the motive behind killing Hayes, which is justice, to be important.

Kant's argument for the execution of Hayes is good because it does not encounter an epistemic problem, as deontology is not concerned with consequences. We can clearly recognize what is right and wrong by considering our duties, moral rules, and whether the act is treating people as an ends or a means only.

Utilitarianism

Classical, or Act, Utilitarianism maintains that the morally right act yields maximum happiness for all sentient beings impartially. A Utilitarian would argue that the execution of Mr. Hayes is morally acceptable if the action serves the greater good of society. In this section, I will demonstrate that the execution of Hayes produces the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness for society.

The execution of Hayes would provide relief, comfort, and gratification for the surviving victim, Dr. William A. Petit Jr., the family of the victims, and Hayes's