It places value not in the initial or preconceived moral righteousness of actions, but morality is a result of the consequences which occur as a result of that action. Additionally, it is said that “whether an act is morally right depends only on the consequences of that act or of something related to that act, such as the motive behind the act” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , 2003). This ethical theory supports the concept of retribution as a form of punishment as these actions are done out of a sense of obligation or motivation, and the outcome of this action is the removal of a criminal from society. Therefore, the action of capital punishment can be morally justified a it is societies obligation to protect others, and this action is inherently good. Contrastingly, the person being sentenced has engaged in an activity which was inherently wrong, therefore the ending of this person’s life while taking into account the consequences of this action can be justified through the motivation of protection of others and generally good intentions. This view connects to the perspective of the historical and unchanged position of the Church of England, whose view remains unchanged from the statement which communicates that capital punishment is “far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to Commandment which prohibits murder” (BBC, 2018). This is further communicated by the Biblical theme of the justice loving God, this can be seen within the scripture Isaiah 61: 8, stating “I the Lord, love justice”. Islamic law also communicates this idea within the Quran at 5:32, “If anyone kills a person—unless it is for murder or for spreading mischief in the land—it would be as if he killed all people” (Huda, 2017). Meaning that the action of killing is not acceptable unless it is enacted with religious motivations, which in this circumstance would be the
It places value not in the initial or preconceived moral righteousness of actions, but morality is a result of the consequences which occur as a result of that action. Additionally, it is said that “whether an act is morally right depends only on the consequences of that act or of something related to that act, such as the motive behind the act” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , 2003). This ethical theory supports the concept of retribution as a form of punishment as these actions are done out of a sense of obligation or motivation, and the outcome of this action is the removal of a criminal from society. Therefore, the action of capital punishment can be morally justified a it is societies obligation to protect others, and this action is inherently good. Contrastingly, the person being sentenced has engaged in an activity which was inherently wrong, therefore the ending of this person’s life while taking into account the consequences of this action can be justified through the motivation of protection of others and generally good intentions. This view connects to the perspective of the historical and unchanged position of the Church of England, whose view remains unchanged from the statement which communicates that capital punishment is “far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to Commandment which prohibits murder” (BBC, 2018). This is further communicated by the Biblical theme of the justice loving God, this can be seen within the scripture Isaiah 61: 8, stating “I the Lord, love justice”. Islamic law also communicates this idea within the Quran at 5:32, “If anyone kills a person—unless it is for murder or for spreading mischief in the land—it would be as if he killed all people” (Huda, 2017). Meaning that the action of killing is not acceptable unless it is enacted with religious motivations, which in this circumstance would be the