What type of chemical reaction (precipitation, acidbase or oxidat

1. What type of chemical reaction (precipitation, acid/base or
oxidation/reduction) do you think is most prevalent in your
workplace? In other words, if an incident happened in your
place of work, what chemical reaction are you most likely to
see? If you don't have chemicals in your workplace use an
example of a local location that houses hazardous chemicals. It
could be anything from the local gas station to the local
hardware store and the chemicals they house.
7
The Death Penalty: Annotated Bibliography
Principles of Ethics
Ethics 445
Professor Kristi Wilson
February 7, 2021

2. The Death Penalty: Annotated Bibliography
The death penalty debate has been ongoing for a while,
with different parties holding varying points-of-view about the
morality of the death penalty. The personal and communal
ethical factors that may help determine the moral position of the
different perspectives on the debate include whether the
argument can be supported by good reasons, the deterrence
effect of the death penalty and whether it serves justice to the
victims. Proponents of the death penalty have to justify the
moral significance of the death penalty by offering good reasons
as to why the practice is moral. The reasons would define the
moral worth of the practice. The moral position of those
supporting the death penalty is that it serves justice to the
victims by killing a murderer. Those opposed to the use of the
death penalty argue from the perspective of the respect for
human dignity, the absolute value of life, and suffering of
innocent people who are executed. The moral position of those
opposed to the practice is that it does not respect the dignity of
humans as well as the absolute value of life. From a moral
perspective, the party that is able to defend and justify its
position with reasonably would be morally right. Rachels and
Rachels (2019) shared Elizabeth Anscombe’s non-
consequentialist position that moral actions should be judged by
the factors that inform the action rather than the consequences.
Kant’s categorical imperative holds the principle of morality
which states that individuals should act only if their actions can
be universalized (Rachels & Rachels, 2019). According to Kant,
an action is moral if it is supported by absolute rules that are
not determined by the consequences of an action. Kant requires
individuals to engage in actions that they are willing to be
applied universally regardless of individuals’ self-interests.
Categorical imperatives imply that the reasons supporting a
moral action must bind all agents. The imperative defines what

3. individuals should do. In the context of the death penalty
debate, categorical imperative requires individuals to approach
the debate by focusing on the universality of the practice.
Therefore, the practice would be moral if it can be applied
universally and consistently regardless of what the individual
agents desire. The death penalty should not be used to take
advantage of others, rather apply to all agents. Kant’s morality
assumes that the courts would be able to accurately establish
whether a person is guilty or not, and those found guilty of
murder should be executed.
Annotated Bibliography
Cholbi, M., & Madva, A. (2018). Black lives matter and the call
for death penalty abolition. Ethics, 128(3), 517-544.
https://doi.org/10.1086/695988
Cholbi and Madva (2018) discussed the call by the Black Lives
Matter movement for capital punishment to be abolished. The
authors defended the two contentions that support the
movement’s stance for capital punishment to be abolished: first,
the use of capital punishment against the black communities in
the United States, and second, the abolition of the practice is a
defensible remedy for the wrong. The movement holds that
capital punishment “devalues black lives” and is a “racist
practice” (p. 517). The controversies that are raised by the
article are, first, whether there is enough evidence showing that
there is the unequal application of the capital punishment,
where black defendants are most likely to be executed than
those of other races; and second, whether abolishing the most
defensible remedy. It is difficult to disagree with the argument
given the effect of implicit racial bias from racial stereotypes
that might influence court decisions. Black defendants feel less
protected by the law than their white counterparts. The article is
important to this debate because it raises questions about the
unequal application of the death penalty, and as a law, it should
be applied universally.
Mann, W. (2015). The death penalty debate: A critical
examination of the moral justifications for capital

4. punishment. The University of Central Florida Stars, HIM 1990-
2015 (Dissertation).https://stars.library.ucf.edu/honorstheses199
0-2015/1722
In the article, Mann (2015) examined the “moral justifications”
of the death penalty and applied the “Kantian retributivism”
when attempting to address the political and ethical issues
surrounding the death penalty. The author discusses several
concepts including “restitution,” “deterrence,” and “retribution”
in the discussion. The controversy raised by the author includes
the application of capital punishment to individuals with
“mental disorders and brain damage.” The author tries to justify
the use of the death penalty with its retributive effect, where
“punishment levied against someone because they have done
something wrong” (p. 17). Mann (2015) argues that “for every
crime, there must be a punishment of equal effect” but cites the
execution of innocent people that prevents the achievement of a
“perfect equilibrium” (p. 18). I disagree with the author on the
justification of the death penalty because he ignores the moral
limitations of the application of the practice by supporting the
death penalty. The article is useful to the discussion as it
attempts to solve the contradictions that exist in the moral
framework through some reasoned explanations.
Mbah, R. E., Pruitt, T., & Wasum, D. F. (2019). Cruel choice:
the ethics and morality of the death penalty. Research On
Humanities and Social Sciences, 9(24), 14-22.
https://doi.org/10.7176/RHSS/9-24-03
The primary objective of the article was to determine how the
death penalty impacts the person executed, the family of the
executed, and the family of the victim. The evidence provided
indicates that the death penalty significantly affects all parti es.
the authors noted that sometimes, the practice does not give the
victim’s family the “healing” that was expected; thus, making it
difficult to say that justice was served. The controversy raised
in the article is the cases where “persons were wrongly
murdered” (p. 14). The authors describe the death penalty as
“cruel,” immoral, and unethical. Given the concerns raised by

5. the authors, I agree with them as it appears that the death
penalty does not bring justice to the victim, and also “creates
more victims-families of the executed” (p. 21). The article is
important because it highlights some critical shortcomings of
the death penalty that makes it more harmful than beneficial,
since it cannot be reversed is a person is wrongly executed.
Steffen, L. (2010). The moral and spiritual challenge of capital
punishment. Sacred Heart University Review, 19(1), 15-33.
https://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/shureview/vol19/iss1/2
In this article, Steffen (2010) examines the “moral and spiritual
challenge” of the death penalty. The author provided a reasoned
explanation of why the death penalty has huge support in the
United States, including the lack of trust of the criminal justice
system to offer justice and the retributive effect of execution.
Steffen (2010) maintai ns that the death penalty is morally
justified on the grounds of “retribution” but faults the
“ineffectiveness of the criminal justice system” (p. 31). From a
religious perspective, the author argues that although Jewish
teachings seemed to approve the death penalty, “Jesus asked to
forgive his executioners” because he believed “execution was
ultimately against God” (p. 19). The controversy raised in the
article is the religious perspective of the death penalty where
the author argues that “God commands it” and at the same time
“the Gospel tells of Jesus interfering to prevent a legal
execution against adultery” (p. 18). Although the divine
command states that what God commands is morally right, it is
not clear what the will of God is in the issue of executi on. The
article is important to this discussion as it describes the illusion
of the death penalty that is used as a “symbol of justice,” and
“symbol of power” but does not conform to the requirements of
fairness and justice.
Sunstein, C. R., & Vermeule, A. (2005). Is capital punishment
morally required” Acts, omissions, and life-life
tradeoffs. Stanford Law Review, 58, 703.
https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/
Sunstein and Vermeule (2005) examined whether capital

6. punishment is “morally required” including both arguments for
and arguments against the practice. The authors termed the
practice as “cruel” and “barbaric” and supported it using
Emmanuel Kant’s “retributivism.” The controversies raised in
the article include whether capital punishment on crimes such as
rape should be morally relevant as does the life-life tradeoffs
applied to murders. Also, the Supreme Court ruled that juvenile
offenders should not be executed, stating that it is difficult to
deter such offenders. This complicates the matter because i t
would mean that the death penalty could only be applied to
murders that can be deterred by the practice. Deontologists
maintain “that the unjustified execution cannot be supported
even if the state is secure in its knowledge of the execution’s
beneficial effects,” which means regardless of the deterrence
effect of capital punishment, “moral wrongdoing by the state
cannot be justified” (p. 718). The article is important as the
authors do not necessarily support or defend the death penalty
but give an objective explanation of the arguments that can be
used to justify either side of the debate.
References
Rachels, S., & Rachels, J. (2019). The elements of moral
philosophy (9th ed.). Mcgraw-Hill Education.
1
5

7. The Death Penalty
Principles of Ethics
Ethics 445
Professor Kristi Wilson
January 20, 2021
The Death Penalty
The topic of the death penalty has been debated over the
years in an attempt to justify whether it should be legalized in
U.S. states or not. The death penalty is a government-sanctioned
taking of a person’s life for committing a capital crime (Desai
& Garrett, 2018). The topic has attracted divergent opinions
from different groups of people with supporting and others
opposing it. It has often been used to punish serious crimes such
as murder, arson, treason and drug trafficking among others
(Desai & Garrett, 2018).
Ethical Egoism
Ethical egoists would support the death penalty by
maintaining that the death penalty would protect them from
suffering from the actions of capital offenders. Ethical egoists
would support the legalization of the death penalty for their
own selfish interests rather than communal interests. Ethical
Egoism maintains that individuals’ moral obligations are
accounted for by their own self-interests (Rachels & Rachels,
2019). Ethical egoists would justify their moral position by

8. stating that individuals do not have to do something because
they want to do it, rather because of their best-interests in the
long-run. Supporters of the death penalty believe that it deters
crime and this would be a strong perspective for the self-
interests of ethical egoists. The deterrence effect of the death
penalty prevents individuals from the harm of injury or death
that arises from the actions of criminals and perpetrators of
serious crimes.
Conflict Between Loyalty to Self and to Community
The conflict between loyalty to self and to the
community would arise if an individual opposes the death
penalty because the death penalty was imposed to prevent
people from committing capital offenses by inflicting them with
the harshest punishment. However, for those who support the
death penalty, their self-interests benefit others. The deterrence
effect of the death penalty protects the individual lives of the
people as well as the welfare of the community. The subjective
interests of individuals coincidentally help others as well.
Best Course of Action
The best course of action would be to stop the death
penalty because individuals have a moral obligation to protect
life. No crime can justify taking life from an individual since no
one is capable of giving it back to any individual. The death
penalty is punishing an individual for a crime with another
crime.
Social Contract Ethicist
Social contract ethicists would say that the death penalty
should be legalized to punish individuals who break the law
through capital offenses. Social contract ethicists would support
the use of the death penalty in the criminal justice system.
Social contract ethicists would justify their moral position by
stating that the state has authority over individuals and
individuals are part of the decision made by the state (Rachels
& Rachels, 2019). The government has the right to exercise
power over individuals by making decisions that it deems right;
thus, individuals should agree and obey what the state says.

9. Social contract ethicists believe that the social contract theory
helps states to avoid states of nature where there would be no
courts, no police, no government, no laws and individuals would
be looking to satisfy their self-interests. State authority
prevents chaos that would arise when everyone tries to look out
just for themselves.
Collision Between Personal and National Obligations
There is a collision between personal and national
obligations because opposes of the death penalty feel that it is
the duty of both individuals and the state to protect life and not
to destroy it. By imposing the death penalty, the state is
destroying the same life it is supposed to protect. The
government is punishing individuals who fail to protect life and
commit serious --crimes such as murder, by taking the lives of
the criminals. Conflict arises when the government requires
individuals to protect life and the government itself is causing
harm to life.
Best Course of Action
The best course of action is for the government to avoid
the death penalty since it destroys life because it has a moral
obligation to protect the life of its citizens and not to cause
harm. The death penalty causes harm rather than protecting life.
Instead, the state can adopt alternative punishments that do not
cause harm to life.
Professional Code of Ethics
The American Nurses Association (ANA) released a
position statement to address the topic of the death penalty
acknowledging that registered nurses (RNs) and other health
care professionals have been involved in the execution of the
death penalty, where lethal injection is used. ANA maintains
that nurses should not participate in the execution of the death
penalty to a prisoner, and goes ahead to oppose the death
penalty.
ANA opposes nurses’ participation in the execution of
the death penalty either directly or indirectly since the death
penalty is viewed as a violation of the ethical traditions and

10. fundamental goals of the nursing profession (Potera, 2017).
ANA opposes the use of the death penalty to prosecute
criminals and considers the action to be unacceptable, inhuman
and cruel. The ANA Code of Ethics requires the nursing
profession to take a stance against actions that do not respect
the dignity of individuals. ANA opposes the death penalty due
to the overwhelming evidence that question the fairness of the
death penalty and its effectiveness in deterring serious crimes
(Potera, 2017). ANA recommends that the nursing profession
should be committed to the delivery of care, preserve the rights
and dignity of individuals, preserve the trust of the people, and
adhere to the ethical principles of fidelity, beneficence, non-
maleficence, and justice.
References
Desai, A., & Garrett, B. L. (2018). The state of the death
penalty. Notre Dame Law Review, 94, 1255.
https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/t
ndl94&div=35&id=&page=
Potera, C. (2017). ANA expands opposition to capital
punishment. The American Journal of Nursing, 117(6), 13.
https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000520235.99148.4d
Rachels, S., & Rachels, J. (2019). The elements of moral
philosophy (9th ed.). Mcgraw-Hill Education.