Final answer:
Cesare Beccaria believed that individuals use a moral calculus to weigh the costs and benefits of illegal actions, influenced by both utilitarian perspectives and evolving societal morals.
Step-by-step explanation:
Cesare Beccaria, an Enlightenment philosopher, posited that individuals engage in a form of moral calculus when deciding whether to commit a crime. This calculus involves weighing the costs and benefits of their actions, assessing potential consequences, and determining if the personal gain outweighs the potential punishment or moral guilt. Similar to the utilitarian perspective where actions are judged based on the greatest good for the greatest number, individuals, according to Beccaria, would evaluate their actions based on personal profit versus potential societal harm and legal repercussions.
In this moral decision-making process, concepts such as Kant's categorical imperative, which dictates that actions should only be taken if they can be universally applied, could influence one's judgment. Moreover, as societal views evolve, the collective morality might shape the legal system, reflecting popular beliefs on what behaviors are deemed acceptable or reprehensible, as illustrated by legal amendments in response to changing moral norms.