Pata1
Rachel Pata
Dr. Moore
Phil 380-50
20 October 2015
Utilitarianism and the Death Penalty
Introduction: The death penalty and utilitarianism are two topics that are generally seen coinciding hand-in-hand. Throughout his article In Defense of the Death Penalty, Louis Pojman uses the utilitarian argument to prove that the death penalty is okay and should be enforced across the country. In this paper, I will show that Pojman’s use of utilitarianism to back up his argument is flawed, making his argument not sound.
Strategy Statement: I will first define utilitarianism and explain how it is measured. Within my explanation of how it is measured, I will explain consequentialism and hedonism and how they play into utilitarianism. I will also explain the principle of responsibility and how it plays into the utilitarian death penalty argument. Then, I will show how Pojman proves that utilitarianism is a valid argument for the death penalty and provide examples to help explain Pojman’s premises.
Finally, I will include examples on why his use of utilitarianism is flawed and is being used incorrectly.
Argument:
1.
If there are good utilitarian reasons for the death penalty then the death penalty is okay.
2.
There are good utilitarian reasons for the death penalty.
3.
Therefore, the death penalty is okay.

Pata2
Explain:
Utilitarianism states that an act is only right if and only if it maximizes utility. The measurement of utility is done so through the use of consequentialism and hedonism. Consequentialism states that an act is morally right if and only if it has best (allowing for ties) consequences. Hedonism states that please or happiness is the only intrinsic good and that pain or unhappiness is the only intrinsic evil. Within hedonism, the unit of pain or displeasure is called dolors. To find the overall utility of a situation one must take ∑ hedons - ∑ dolors (from the consequences). The solution to the equation is considered the overall utility of a situation. Pojman uses the principle of responsibility to help validate his argument. The principle of responsibility states that “people are accountable for their actions and should be rewarded and punished accordingly.”
1.
The utilitarian argument for capital punishment states that capital punishment will deter more people from committing murder. This deterrence is said to outweigh the murder of the convicted felon.
2.
According to Pojman, “those who purposefully do evil deserve punishment” meaning that people who kill other people deserve to be punished. He also states that the principle of responsibility plays a large role into how, not only criminals but ordinary people as well, should be treated in regards to their actions.
Examples:
1.
Pojman uses the famous example of the Nazis during World War 2 and the Nuremberg
Trials after the war. He claims that the Nazis were deserving of death because of the gravity of their crimes. The Nazis killed millions of Jews, Catholics, Gypsies, and people from other selected groups. According to the utilitarian argument, by doing so the number of dolors during the war would be unbelievably high. Pojman values the life of

Pata3 the murderer at +5 and the execution of the murderer at -5 while valuing the saving of the innocent life at +10 and the murder of the innocent life at -10. By killing the selected officials after the Nuremberg Trials, the dolors would increase as well. Although the dolors would increase, the hedons would increase because of the countless lives that could possibly be being saved. If the selected officials were not killed, the hedons would increase in a much smaller quantity. Using this argument, the killing of the selected officials is justified.
2.
During Isaac Ehrlich’s study, he keeps a close eye on the number of murders per year compared to the number of executions per year. Although the statistical evidence is considered inconclusive, he thinks that one additional execution per year may have resulted in 7-8 fewer murders per year.
Evaluate:
Form: Modus Ponens
Valid: Yes
Sound : No
Premise number 1 is false because there is absolutely no evidence that states that by having the death penalty, potential murderers have been deterred. The article itself says that the study was inconclusive and says that the death penalty “may have” lowered the average number of murders per year. The second premise also does not take into account the fact that innocent people are sometimes wrongfully convicted of murder. The number of dolors from a wrongfully accused person being murdered would match the number of dolors that would come from an innocent person being murdered. In addition to this, the potential difference in

Pata4 the number of dolors or hedons per victim, both murderer and innocent victim, may vary.
Take for example a case where a man who had been embezzling money from charities around the world is murdered. Would the murder of this man result in hedons or dolors? The man was innocent to the public eye, but he was withholding money from charities that could have potentially fed a family or saved an individual’s life. How are we, as humans, supposed to decide how many hedons or dolors a person’s life is worth? This question leads to premise
2 being false as well because one cannot truly measure the utility of a situation like the death penalty.
Conclusion: Pojman’s use of utilitarianism throughout his paper on the death penalty is flawed.
His incorrect use of the utilitarianism theory shows how although, certain events may appear to have a certain positive or negative value, the true value of an activity can never really be determined. The true value of an activity can never be determined because each person values different activities in different ways. Because of this issue, utilitarianism can never truly be used to find the utility of a situation.

Works Cited
Pojman, Louis P. "In Defense of the Death Penalty." International Journal of Applied
Philosophy 11.2 (1997): n. pag. Web. 19 Oct. 2015.
Pata5