Kant i kara śmierci

2006
book section
article
dc.abstract.enThe article presents the principal elements of Kant’s argument in favor of capital punishment, together with the arguments of the opposing side. The issues considered are deterrence, arbitrariness, the sanctity of life, and utilitarianism vs. Kantianism. Regarding deterrence, the abolitionist claims that there are no deterred criminals, and that a criminal who appeared in a world without capital punishment would also become one in a world with it; the rigorist holds that it is our duty to risk the ineffective application of capital punishment, as a result of which we will perhaps save some victims and some criminals will perhaps be deterred. Regarding arbitrariness, the abolitionist claims that this penalty functions selectively and is therefore unjust, since due to error or ignorance on the part of the court persons less deserving of being penalized might be put to death; the rigorist holds that selective justice is still justice. Regarding the sanctity of life, contrary to the claim that the death penalty undermines the sanctity of life, it can be shown that in offering the criminal in exchange for a premeditated murder, we honor him by acknowledging him as a free and rational being, assuming that a life marked by shame is worse than nonexistence. Regarding the dispute between utilitarianism and Kantianism, a utilitarian would say that the criminal is punished to serve as an example to others and deter them from crimes. The Kantian would answer that he has no right to treat the criminal as a means to the realization of his social project. He should be punished not because of the damage produced by him or for the sake of social benefits, but in accordance with his own deed, in which he esteemed the life of another person as inferior to the ends he set himself. He can therefore no longer remain under the care of the law which he himself overthrew. In the above context the following problems are also considered: freedom, the discontinuity of the criminal, revenge, and the social contract.pl
dc.affiliationWydział Filozoficzny : Instytut Filozofiipl
dc.contributor.authorBartula, Piotr - 127240 pl
dc.contributor.editorMiklaszewska, Justyna - 130601 pl
dc.contributor.editorSpryszak, Przemysław - 132021 pl
dc.date.accessioned2019-11-29T12:24:25Z
dc.date.available2019-11-29T12:24:25Z
dc.date.issued2006pl
dc.date.openaccess144
dc.description.accesstimepo opublikowaniu
dc.description.additionalRecenzowane materiały z konferencji: Kant wobec problemów współczesnego świata, dn. 21-23 maja 2004 r., Kraków. Strona wydawcy: https://www.wuj.plpl
dc.description.physical153-163pl
dc.description.publication0,79pl
dc.description.versionostateczna wersja wydawcy
dc.identifier.isbn83-233-2065-9pl
dc.identifier.isbn978-83-233-2065-4pl
dc.identifier.projectROD UJ / OPpl
dc.identifier.urihttps://ruj.uj.edu.pl/xmlui/handle/item/88269
dc.languagepolpl
dc.language.containerpolpl
dc.pubinfoKraków : Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiegopl
dc.rightsDozwolony użytek utworów chronionych*
dc.rights.licenceOTHER
dc.rights.urihttp://ruj.uj.edu.pl/4dspace/License/copyright/licencja_copyright.pdf*
dc.share.typeotwarte repozytorium
dc.subject.enImmanuel Kantpl
dc.subject.plImmanuel Kantpl
dc.subtypeArticlepl
dc.titleKant i kara śmiercipl
dc.title.alternativeKant and capital punishment : rigorism vs. abolitionismpl
dc.title.containerKant wobec problemów współczesnego światapl
dc.typeBookSectionpl
dspace.entity.typePublication
dc.abstract.enpl
The article presents the principal elements of Kant’s argument in favor of capital punishment, together with the arguments of the opposing side. The issues considered are deterrence, arbitrariness, the sanctity of life, and utilitarianism vs. Kantianism. Regarding deterrence, the abolitionist claims that there are no deterred criminals, and that a criminal who appeared in a world without capital punishment would also become one in a world with it; the rigorist holds that it is our duty to risk the ineffective application of capital punishment, as a result of which we will perhaps save some victims and some criminals will perhaps be deterred. Regarding arbitrariness, the abolitionist claims that this penalty functions selectively and is therefore unjust, since due to error or ignorance on the part of the court persons less deserving of being penalized might be put to death; the rigorist holds that selective justice is still justice. Regarding the sanctity of life, contrary to the claim that the death penalty undermines the sanctity of life, it can be shown that in offering the criminal in exchange for a premeditated murder, we honor him by acknowledging him as a free and rational being, assuming that a life marked by shame is worse than nonexistence. Regarding the dispute between utilitarianism and Kantianism, a utilitarian would say that the criminal is punished to serve as an example to others and deter them from crimes. The Kantian would answer that he has no right to treat the criminal as a means to the realization of his social project. He should be punished not because of the damage produced by him or for the sake of social benefits, but in accordance with his own deed, in which he esteemed the life of another person as inferior to the ends he set himself. He can therefore no longer remain under the care of the law which he himself overthrew. In the above context the following problems are also considered: freedom, the discontinuity of the criminal, revenge, and the social contract.
dc.affiliationpl
Wydział Filozoficzny : Instytut Filozofii
dc.contributor.authorpl
Bartula, Piotr - 127240
dc.contributor.editorpl
Miklaszewska, Justyna - 130601
dc.contributor.editorpl
Spryszak, Przemysław - 132021
dc.date.accessioned
2019-11-29T12:24:25Z
dc.date.available
2019-11-29T12:24:25Z
dc.date.issuedpl
2006
dc.date.openaccess
144
dc.description.accesstime
po opublikowaniu
dc.description.additionalpl
Recenzowane materiały z konferencji: Kant wobec problemów współczesnego świata, dn. 21-23 maja 2004 r., Kraków. Strona wydawcy: https://www.wuj.pl
dc.description.physicalpl
153-163
dc.description.publicationpl
0,79
dc.description.version
ostateczna wersja wydawcy
dc.identifier.isbnpl
83-233-2065-9
dc.identifier.isbnpl
978-83-233-2065-4
dc.identifier.projectpl
ROD UJ / OP
dc.identifier.uri
https://ruj.uj.edu.pl/xmlui/handle/item/88269
dc.languagepl
pol
dc.language.containerpl
pol
dc.pubinfopl
Kraków : Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego
dc.rights*
Dozwolony użytek utworów chronionych
dc.rights.licence
OTHER
dc.rights.uri*
http://ruj.uj.edu.pl/4dspace/License/copyright/licencja_copyright.pdf
dc.share.type
otwarte repozytorium
dc.subject.enpl
Immanuel Kant
dc.subject.plpl
Immanuel Kant
dc.subtypepl
Article
dc.titlepl
Kant i kara śmierci
dc.title.alternativepl
Kant and capital punishment : rigorism vs. abolitionism
dc.title.containerpl
Kant wobec problemów współczesnego świata
dc.typepl
BookSection
dspace.entity.type
Publication

* The migration of download and view statistics prior to the date of April 8, 2024 is in progress.

Views
44
Views per month
Views per city
Krakow
7
Warsaw
7
Wroclaw
5
Gdansk
3
Chandler
2
Bydgoszcz
1
Dublin
1
Ełk
1
Gmina Stąporków
1
Iława
1
Downloads
bartula_kant_i_kara_smierci_2006.odt
34
bartula_kant_i_kara_smierci_2006.pdf
24