In this paper you will review the three ethical theories covered in class and apply them to the debate over the death penalty. The three ethical theories are utilitarianism, the ethics of autonomy, and social contract theory. All of these theories have something to say about the nature of morality in general, and while none of them are specifically about the death penalty, they can help us make a judgment about its rightness or wrongness. Begin by reading the two 1000wordphilosophy.com articles by Yost and Rodgers: https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2019/07/28/the-death-penalty/ and https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2019/02/05/theories-of-punishment/ Then read the following New York Times articles about the execution of Lisa Montgomery, available on Blackboard (warning – they are disturbing): • Rachel Louise Snyder – Punch After Punch, Rape After Rape, a Murderer Was Made • Hailey Fuchs – U.S. Executes Lisa Montgomery for 2004 Murder You may cite these and the articles below when writing your essay. You are prohibited from using any other outside sources. • John C. Kissinger Jr. – The Death Penalty Should be Maintained • Kim Evans – The Death Penalty Should be Abolished • David Weinberger – Why Morality Demands the Death Penalty • David R. Dow – Lessons from Death Row Inmates (Ted Talk) For your paper: 1. First, describe the difference between forward-looking theories of punishment and backward-looking theories of punishment. Explain how a proponent of the death penalty might appeal to forward-looking and backward-looking theories of punishment to justify executing our society’s worst criminals. (2 paragraph minimum, 30 points) 2. Briefly summarize what utilitarianism says is the difference between right and wrong. Then explain whether a utilitarian would favor keeping or favor abolishing the death penalty. A complete answer will include the concept of “opportunity costs” and a consideration of how alternatives to the death penalty would raise or lower society’s happiness. (2 paragraph minimum, 30 points) 3. Briefly define and illustrate what autonomy is and give reasons for thinking that we have a moral obligation to respect people’s autonomy. Then explain whether or not people would deserve to be punished for their crimes if they didn’t have autonomy. Assuming we do have autonomy, does someone deserve to be punished more harshly because they harm someone on purpose rather than by accident? Why or why not? (2 paragraph minimum, 30 points) 4. Briefly explain what we know and what we don’t know behind the “veil of ignorance” in John Rawls’ social contract theory. Then explain whether we would vote to keep or abolish the death penalty if we were in Rawls’ “original position” behind the veil of ignorance and why. (2 paragraph minimum, 30 points) 5. Make a concluding moral judgment about keeping or abolishing the death penalty. This judgment may include qualifications about who should be executed and why, but it cannot be ambiguous, it must be clearly either in favor of or opposed to abolishing the death penalty. Note, the moral judgment you decide to defend here does not need to be your actual personal view; it can be any judgment that you believe can be defended using reason. (1 paragraph minimum, 20 points) 6. Identify the best reason(s) in support of your conclusion and explain why it (they) is conclusive.