Is capital punishment murder

Sample Answer

Jeffrey Reiman's Argument (Against the Death Penalty)

Jeffrey Reiman, while agreeing that murderers deserve to die, argues that executing them is the "wrong thing to do" [08:30] because:

Civilizing Message: By sparing the life of a murderer, society communicates the "valuable and inalienable nature of a human life" [08:54], which contributes to a more civilized, less violent society [09:29].

Human Rights Analogy: He criticizes the logic that a punishment is justified simply because it is a more effective deterrent. He argues that this logic would also permit torturing a murderer to death, which is seen as a grievous human rights violation, to achieve maximum deterrence [14:43].

Ernst van den Haag's Argument (For the Death Penalty)

Ernst van den Haag defends the death penalty primarily on the grounds of deterrence:

Moral Obligation: He argues that the state has a moral obligation to prevent future victims [05:38]. He suggests that if the death penalty deters even one murder, it is justified and leads to a net gain [03:17].

Risking Lives: He frames the debate as a choice between risks. He states that we have no right to risk additional future victims of murder for the sake of sparing convicted murderers [05:31]. The uncertainty of saving future lives is worth the certainty of executing a convicted murderer [05:58].

The video you provided, "Discussing Deterrence and The Death Penalty," does not explicitly classify capital punishment as "murder." Instead, it discusses the morality and justification of the death penalty through the arguments of two philosophers, Ernst van den Haag and Jeffrey Reiman.

The discussion centers on whether the state is justified in taking a person's life as a form of punishment.

Jeffrey Reiman's Argument (Against the Death Penalty)

Jeffrey Reiman, while agreeing that murderers deserve to die, argues that executing them is the "wrong thing to do" [08:30] because:

Civilizing Message: By sparing the life of a murderer, society communicates the "valuable and inalienable nature of a human life" [08:54], which contributes to a more civilized, less violent society [09:29].

Human Rights Analogy: He criticizes the logic that a punishment is justified simply because it is a more effective deterrent. He argues that this logic would also permit torturing a murderer to death, which is seen as a grievous human rights violation, to achieve maximum deterrence [14:43].

Ernst van den Haag's Argument (For the Death Penalty)

Ernst van den Haag defends the death penalty primarily on the grounds of deterrence:

• @