Utilitarianism is founded on the analysis of the consequences of actions

Utilitarianism is founded on the analysis of the consequences of actions. Utilitarianism
demands that human beings embrace some degree of pragmatism. The simple notion that certain
rights are guaranteed by human existence is rejected. The judgment on whether
something is right or wrong cannot be made by simply relying on an existing ethical framework.
Concerning the death penalty, the decision must be made based on whether or not
it results in the happiness of the majority. Premise two of the argument that states that the death
penalty may create future victims of murderers is speculative and uncertain. The uncertainty
speaks to the wrongness of the death penalty. Utilitarianism states that punishment can only be
justified if it results in a greater good or benefit. An ideal punishment must thus result in the
greater good and must also attain minimal social harm.
Premise two does not propose any tangible benefits that would result from capital
punishment. It fails to consider the social cost of the fact that innocent people may be killed
through capital punishment. To this end, the premise is contrary to utilitarian principles and,
therefore, unethical. Similarly, premise three falls short of fulfilling utilitarian principles.
Utilitarianism binds all human beings to weigh the consequences of every action before
undertaking it. Although some lives will be needlessly lost whether the death penalty is
abolished or not, a utilitarian must favor the action that results in the greater good. Evidently, the
action that favors the opposite is the abolition of capital punishment. Premise four also should be
weighed on its efficacy. Lives can be protected by imprisoning the culprits. Capital punishment
is thus not the only way of ensuring that the lives of innocent people are protected.