Final Essay Explanation

Summary

This video discusses how to structure an essay on a moral dilemma, using capital punishment as an example. It outlines key steps including explaining the situation, identifying stakeholders, and applying ethical theories such as Kant's Categorical Imperative and Utilitarianism. The Categorical Imperative is explored through its three formulations, evaluating logical consistency, treating others as ends, and respecting autonomy. Utilitarianism is applied by calculating the overall pleasure or suffering for each stakeholder. The video emphasizes the importance of thorough analysis and justification in reaching a moral conclusion, ultimately questioning the ethics of capital punishment.

Takeaways

• 😀 The first step in writing the essay is to clearly explain the specific situation or scenario being addressed, such as the moral dilemma of capital punishment.
• 😀 A moral dilemma involves a choice between two conflicting paths, such as whether it is morally correct to execute someone for a capital crime.
• 😀 Identifying stakeholders is crucial. Stakeholders are those affected by the decision, such as the criminal, their family, and the victim's family.
• 😀 A normative ethical theory needs to be selected, such as Kantian ethics (categorical imperative) or utilitarianism, to guide the analysis of the dilemma.
• 😀 The categorical imperative approach involves creating a universal maxim and testing its logical consistency, ensuring that the action can be universally applied without contradiction.
• 😀 In the categorical imperative approach, the second formulation asks whether individuals involved are treated as mere means to an end or as rational beings with inherent value.
• 😀 Kantian ethics also emphasizes autonomy, meaning individuals must make decisions based on their own rational thinking and self-reflection, without external influence.
• 😀 For Kant, if a criminal is a rational being, executing them may be immoral as it would treat them as a mere means to an end, violating their autonomy.
• 😀 In utilitarianism, the goal is to maximize pleasure and minimize suffering for all stakeholders, weighing the potential benefits and harms of either side of the dilemma.
• 😀 Utilitarian analysis involves assessing the consequences for each stakeholder group (e.g., criminal, victim's family, justice system) and calculating total pleasure or suffering to determine the morally correct choice.
• 😀 The decision in capital punishment cases often involves weighing the suffering of the criminal and their family against the potential benefits, such as societal safety and victim closure.
• 😀 The final conclusion in the essay should explain the ethical reasoning behind the chosen course of action, whether based on Kantian or utilitarian principles, with clear justifications for why it is morally correct.

Q & A

What is the main ethical dilemma discussed in the transcript?

The main ethical dilemma discussed is whether it is morally correct to execute someone for committing a capital crime, such as murder.

What are the first steps to take when approaching an ethical dilemma in the essay?

The first steps are to explain the specific situation, identify the moral dilemma, and define the two possible choices or paths to take.

What are 'stakeholders' in the context of an ethical dilemma?

Stakeholders are anyone who is affected by or involved in the situation, even if they are not directly part of the decision-making process.

What normative ethical theories are suggested for analyzing the dilemma?

The normative ethical theories suggested are Kantian ethics (specifically the Categorical Imperative) and utilitarianism.

What is the first formulation of the Categorical Imperative, and how does it apply to capital punishment?

The first formulation is the Universal Law, which asks if a maxim can be universalized. In the case of capital punishment, it means asking whether it would be logical for the rule 'anytime someone commits a capital crime, they should be executed' to apply universally.

How does the second formulation of the Categorical Imperative evaluate capital punishment?

The second formulation asks whether a rational individual is treated merely as a means to an end. In capital punishment, it evaluates whether the criminal is being used as a tool to achieve a larger goal (e.g., deterrence or justice), or if they are being respected as a rational being.

What is the third formulation of the Categorical Imperative and its relevance to capital punishment?

The third formulation is about autonomy, which requires individuals to make decisions based on their own rational self-reflection. In capital punishment, it asks whether executing a rational individual violates their autonomy or moral decision-making.

What is the utilitarian approach to resolving the capital punishment dilemma?

The utilitarian approach involves calculating the total pleasure or suffering caused by executing or not executing the criminal. It seeks to choose the action that results in the greatest happiness or the least suffering for all involved stakeholders.

How does the utilitarian method of 'hedonic calculus' work in this dilemma?

The hedonic calculus involves assessing the intensity and certainty of pleasure or suffering for each stakeholder group, such as the criminal, the victim’s family, and society. After calculating these factors for both options (execution or life imprisonment), the choice that results in the highest total pleasure or least suffering is deemed morally correct.

What factors are considered when evaluating the pleasure or suffering of each stakeholder in the utilitarian approach?

Factors include the intensity of pleasure or suffering, the certainty of that outcome, the duration of the effect, and the overall impact on each stakeholder group, such as the criminal, their family, the victim's family, and society.