摘要
死刑的存废之争是当代应用伦理学的重要问题之一。美国最高法院在20世纪70年代关于死刑是否具有伦理合法性的两个截然相反的裁决,在学术界激起了持久而激烈的伦理争论。死刑威慑论和死刑报应论都难以为死刑的合理性提供伦理辩护。从后果主义视角和道义论视角对死刑威慑论和死刑报应论的伦理缺陷进行剖析,有助于扫除死刑废除运动所面临的某些伦理障碍。
Ethical debate over death penalty is one of the important issues of contemporary applied ethics. The two opposite judgments of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1970s about the ethical legitimacy of death penalty stimulated the intense and lasting debate in the field of applied ethics. The retentionist and deterrent arguments are unable to provide ethical justification for capital punishment. To reveal and expose the ethical defects of retentionist and deterrent arguments from the perspectives of consequentialism and deontology respectively is helpful to eliminate the ethical obstacles for the abolition of capital punishment.
出处
《中国人民大学学报》
CSSCI
北大核心
2009年第3期97-104,共8页
Journal of Renmin University of China
关键词
生命权
死刑威慑论
死刑报应论
rights to life
deterrent arguments
retentionist arguments
