Is capital punishment consistent with the Kantian principle

*Adress two of the following topics in no more than seven pages. Make appropriate use in your essays of the course reading(from Mappes, and Zembaty, and DEGrazia, Social Ethics:Morality and Social Policy concluding chapters in Ethical Theory , “Critique of Kant” and “Eudaemonism,” pp34-45) and of the critical analysis.
(1) Is Mappes’ own interpretation of the Kantian principle—always regard persons as ends in themselves and never as mere means—correct and does his interpretation of this principle adequately capture the meaning of human freedom as the ethical standard when that is applied to human sexuality? Justify your answers. Consider the rival views of Punzo, west, and Klepper. Would same sex marriages be morally legitimate from a Kantian point of view? Why or why not? Does the Aristotelian and natural law tradition make a difference insofar as reason is regarded as being embodied in male and female persons?
(2) Why does Kant pursue a purely retributive view of capital punishment against the utilitarians?Is capital punishment consistent with the Kantian principle of regarding persons as ends in themselves? Justify your answers. Consider the linkage between ethics and religion on this issue.
(3) Does an anthropocentric or humanistic ethics such as kant’s provide an adequate basis for obligations to animals and the environment> why or why not ? Are there compelling ethical reasons for preferring the humanistic or personalist(deontological) framework over sentientism(utilitarianism) and ecocentrism? If ao, what are they, and why are they compelling?

Note: Ethics Books should be used for proper writing and no grades if the essay does not covers anything from book. Use appropriately Ethical Theory Book.

Times New Roman 12

Work cited page

"Order a similar paper and get 15% discount on your first order with us
Use the following coupon

Order Now