Reflections: Analysis 1

On October 9, 1981, the French Senate abolished the death penalty for all crimes; however, this decision was not void of controversy or disagreement. In this blog post, I would like to discuss why there was an ethical divide over capital punishment in 20th-century France by analyzing Camus’ Reflections on the Guillotine through a modern philosophical lens. Then, I would like to analyze the thought processes surrounding capital punishment in France, paying close attention to the role of politics in this debate. Finally, I would like to provide my thoughts on why the United States has not abolished capital punishment.

It is important to incorporate this discussion into the philosophical framework of ethics. Specifically, decisionism is a moral framework that revolves around the question “What ought I do?” when faced with a moral dilemma, and it can be divided into two categories: consequentialism and deontology. Consequentialism determines whether an action is moral or immoral based on its consequences. If an action leads to the greater good of society, it should be done. If an action does not lead to the greater good of society, it should be avoided. On the other hand, deontology determines whether an action is moral or immoral based on the action itself, which is often duty-based. It is morally acceptable to act in a way that upholds a social duty or rule, even if the consequences are negative. With these definitions in mind, it becomes clear that the French State in Camus’ essay follows consequentialist reasoning. For instance, the State believes that the positive consequences of the death penalty (e.g. crime prevention) justify the act of murder. Specifically, supporters claim that “certain men are irremediable in society” because they “constitute a permanent danger for every citizen and for the social order,” which justifies their “suppress[ion]” (31). In opposition, Camus’ argument follows deontological reasoning, pointing out that murder is immoral in every context and should be avoided. For instance, Camus states that “it is obviously no less repulsive than the crime, and this new murder, far from making amends for the harm done to the social body, adds a new blot to the first one” (2). Therefore, according to Camus, the practice of capital punishment disregards a universally accepted moral principle (i.e. do not murder), which harms society.

Where do politics fit into morality? As Jonathan Haidt and Jesse Graham propose in “When Morality Opposes Justice,” “there are five psychological foundations of morality,” which determine how different cultures view morality and create laws and social rules in response (99). These foundations include harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity (99).

It is important to note that Haidt and Graham’s foundations are weighed differently by liberals and conservatives. Specifically, liberals tend to value only the harm/care and fairness/reciprocity domains while conservatives tend to value all five of the proposed domains. With this in mind, pure liberals reject capital punishment, and pure conservatives support capital punishment. While this theory was developed using American political ideologies, it can be applied to 20th-century France. For instance, Camus upholds a liberal political ideology. He believes that capital punishment perpetuates harm in society by reinforcing violence and notes that jurors tend to make biased decisions, which could lead to the false conviction and death of innocent and remediable citizens. In opposition, the French State upholds a conservative political ideology. For example, the State wants to protect its citizens from harm, punish criminals according to the law of retaliation, show allegiance to citizens who respect social norms, maintain its legal and social authority, and cleanse society from moral corruption.

If France was able to reach a compromise in 1981, why is America still stuck in a political deadlock? At first glance, the death penalty seems immoral based on the principle that murder is sinful, so there has to be a deeper reason (below the naked eye) that makes the United States one of the only Western countries (if not the only Western country) that condones capital punishment. It seems that American liberals view the capital punishment debate through a deontological perspective while American conservatives view the capital punishment debate through a consequentialist perspective. Along with opposing moral frameworks, perhaps the political agendas of American Democrats and Republicans have become less about morality and solving problems and more about 'winning.'

Now that we have discussed the two major foundations of morality and their accompanying political affiliations, it is time to dive into a more in-depth analysis of Camus’ argument in Reflections on the Guillotine. See you next week!

–Courtney Bain