However there is not a lot of data to support this claim. Although it is believed that the death penalty deters more than the fear of imprisonment alone. This here makes it rational to use the death p... ... middle of paper ... ...s as they have done unto you”. This is basically the same as the Golden Rule but put into reverse order. The suffering and punishment of a criminal should be equal to that which was done.
In James Rachels’ article, “Active and Passive Euthanasia”, Rachels discusses and analyzes the moral differences between killing someone and letting someone die. He argues that killing someone is not, in itself, worse than letting someone die. James, then, supports this argument by adding several examples of cases of both active and passive euthanasia and illustrating that there is no moral difference. Both the end result and motive is the same, therefore the act is also the same. I will argue that there is, in fact, no moral difference between killing someone and intentionally letting a person die.
(McMahan, 1993) This occurs in Tooley’s example where there is no sign of moral difference between pressing the button and not pressing the button. The moral significance of killing and letting die may have weight in cases and not in others attributes to the ‘many factors that contribute to the determination of the rightness or wrongness of an act’. (Cartwright, 1996) This applies to Rachels’ case where the both Jones and Smith were driven by the same dreadful motive and consequence that the difference of action and inaction considered invalid as a moral distinction. These factors that affect the distinction are largely variable. Thus the moral distinction between killing and letting die can be preceded by other factors.
My believe is capital punishment is morally justified. Although you take a life of human with human rights these people have zero remorse for the innocent they execrably slaughter. Where is the moral in allowing to let a person who has been found guilty for murder to live? Where is the morality of feeding a... ... middle of paper ... ...entence. Maybe they won't be hindered.
Killing is an evil act, but when it is committed, the only way to achieve justice is by dealing the killer the same hand they dealt an innocent. Human rights are violated by not eliminating the people who take someone else’s, because allowing someone who has murdered in cold blood to continue living is just as disrespectful to the person killed as the murderer taking their life in the first place. By eliminating these people, society is actually acknowledging the sanctity of human life. The death penalty is the moral solution because protecting a killer holds the same immorality as killing a person directly, and if we defend a killer, what makes us any better than them?
The Importance of Being Human ABSTRACT: In this paper I will defend a kind of human-centered perspective regarding ethical questions wherein the interests of humans and nonhumans alike are involved. Compared to other species, however, the idea that there is something special about being human is commonly vague. For example, it is unclear whether the thought is (1) being a human being is important in itself, or (2) it is important to be like a human being — that is, to have the capacities which a normal adult human being enjoys. I build my defense of human dignity on the claim that we regard a biological human being as a being of intrinsic importance, which is what (1) is about. However, I also consider the ethical implications of (2), which concerns the moral significance of personhood.
Dr. Tom Regan, an American philosopher who specializes in animal rights theory, said “To treat human beings in ways that do not honor their independent value is to violate the most basic of human rights: the right of each person to be treated with respect” (Regan). When it comes to what we deserve, ethics and fairness lie along the same line. To be fair is to be ethical and just. To be just means to look out for the common interests of all people and to impart the upmost levels of respect. When the topic of justice is mentioned it almost always relates to humans, but what about animals?
James Rachels’ view James Rachels argues that it makes no moral difference whether death is caused by someone doing something to bring it about, or someone not doing anything to prevent its coming about. Causing death through inaction rather than action does not necessarily render you either morally or legally innocent of responsibility for that death. Passive euthanasia normally takes longer to bring about death than active euthanasia would have .If the patient is in pain and if the suffering is part of the reason for choosing euthanasia, then it is cruel and inconsistent to choose passive euthanasia which brings about more suffering than the active one. Why Passive Euthanasia can be ... ... middle of paper ... ...ion, believing that this is the most compassionate decision. Forth is family with a heavy financial burden in addition to social and psychological burden, family members may have to shoulder a heavy financial burden.
I consider the latter procedure to be more humane than that of the other because it is morally wrong to kill a person, rather it's humane for someone to die naturally. Before I discuss the rights and wrongs of euthanasia, I will define death or a person, when is it safe to say... ... middle of paper ... ...Jack D. "Euthanasia." Microsoft® Encarta® 98 Encyclopedia. © 1993-1997: Microsoft Corporation.
I believe in “just desert,” that is criminals should receive the same punishment that they used against their victims. If you murder someone intentionally you should receive the death penalty. Finally, society feels relief as the capital punishment protects their own human dignity that are at risk if the accused remains alive; society dignity fails if they don’t punish the accused for they become participators of the crime. Therefore, the occurrence of anarchy is avoided with this punishment as it will serve as deterrence as well. Some philosophers such as Kant and Pojman have agreed with my view while others like Marshall and Bedau have challenged it.