Ethics: Central Component to Justice Essay Example

come in future will not be taken by the authorities seriously if the threats that were experienced in the past are not fulfilled and most parents try to avoid the impression that they will not perform what they utter. Authorities should take their procedures in an ethical manner to encourage those people who are worth it than punishing every suspect without clear evidence justifying the same (Forrester, 2010).

The major approaches that justify punishment are utilitarian and retributive. A retributive approach states that punishment is justified because people deserve it. The approach clarifies that people should receive a punishment in return to the harm they have caused to other people. In a philosophical approach that corresponds to the feelings that someone who has done wrong or harm to others should be penalized and that the punishment will restore the moral order that has been destroyed the wrongful act done originally (Bowie, 2004). In a view of Kant leaving the victims of crime without any punishment will leave guilt among the society. Only those who are guilty of doing wrong or harm to others deserve punishment, and the cruelty of the penalty must be proportional to the wrongdoing. Close examination of the theory reveals much of apparent simplicity and some tensions between the effects and the practices of the actual societies and finally exposes its vulnerability to objections that are powerful (Sawatsky, 2008). The retributive theory is taken to claim a connection between justified legal punishment and moral guilt. The theory also raises questions concerning appropriate purposes of a state and attempt to people to show that reward and punishment are equal to moral deserts. On the

other hand, the utilitarian theory claims that justification of punishment is clear when the penalty promotes human happiness than the possible alternatives. Since punishment involves pain, it can be only justified if it has positive consequences that outweigh the harm. It may also claim that future reduction of immoral violations of right is a true goal that is independent of the impact that those violations have on the people that are involved.

Theories that view punishment as a way that is inappropriate to poor moral behavior include categorical imperative that asks people to act in a way that is universal to the law. It requires people to behave in a rational way that will be suitable for anyone. It goes further to state that if it is right for someone to defend themselves when they are attacked then others may have right to defend themselves in self-defense. Aristotelian virtue ethics argues that people can learn from behaviors that cause happiness through their past and learn to be sensitive.
Alternative ways to physical punishment may involve rewarding behavior that is desirable can be more effective than the punishment for behavior that is undesirable to maintain discipline. The alternatives to punishment include establishing an environment that creates encouragement. This approach will divert attention from a reaction approach to plan for appropriate behavior (Forrester, 2010). Another way is responding to the behaviors of individuals where they are punished immediately and consistently but not frequently and choosing appropriate and effective punishments. Also, troubleshooting difficult behavior issues by watching what happens when a problem behavior occurs. Individuals should find out what is punishing and giving rewards to individuals committing crimes.

References

1. Bowie, R.
   

(2004). Ethical studies. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes.