The idea of what is morally permissible is something philosophers have argued and documented for thousands of years. Presently, laws enforced upon society create controversy over if the rulings made are the morally correct decisions. The death penalty is an example of a ruling that has been used by many cultures throughout time, and each theory argues differently whether the penalty is morally permissible. The utilitarianism theory believes that the morally correct action is one which makes the greatest amount of people happy. It focuses on consequences and wants the outcome of each action to benefit society as a whole. It treats everyone as an equal and wants individuals to make each decision to generate the greatest level of pleasure, even if the action is not the individual's preferred choice. A utilitarian believes everyone should be treated as an equal, and nobody is more important from anyone else. I think utilitarianism would view the death penalty as moral because serves as a consequence to those who commit murder and brings pleasure to greatest amount of people, but could also be argued against due to suffering experienced by the criminal. .
Utilitarianism is built around the principle that consequences determine if an action is morally correct. Because of that, I think a utilitarian would agree that one should suffer the consequence of a death penalty if they perform an action so completely against its morals, such as murder. Since criminals receive this punishment for murder, I think the death penalty is fair treatment for taking another human's life. Utilitarianism believes in equal consideration and highly values consequences, I think utilitarianism would think the death penalty is an equal consequence for taking another person's life. Utilitarianism strongly believes that decisions should be influenced by their consequences, and the death penalty provides a punishment for performing an act that is so against a utilitarian's obligation and belief.