"All the time he coulda had such a good time if it was not for you” (Steinbeck). The quote shows that If George did not have Lennie, maybe he could have a better life more than this because he does not have to take care of Lennie and he can live his life without get in trouble. George had done the right thing. He should kill Lennie because Lennie cannot control his mind because of his mental problem even he did not mean to do the thing that he have done but George might have the better life If he did not have to take care of Lennie and at last if George did not kill Lennie, Curley will shoot Lennie. However Lennie is going to die in someday and It is better choice if Lennie gets killed by George not the other
Both men had the same motive and willingness to kill the child, but the only difference was one killed while the other let them die. In this situation there is not a moral difference between killing and letting die. I believe the majority would agree that both are morally wrong. People might think that Dr. Rachels’s argument only works with negative motives, but it also works for euthanasia where the motives are generally for a positive reason such as relieving a patient from their suffering. For instance, looking at either passive euthanasia or active euthanasia it is the same positive motive and the same result and once again it only comes down to the killing and letting them die.
In “Lamb to the Slaughter,” Roald Dahl the officers overlook the idea of Mrs. Maloney being the killer and the murder weapon for that matter. Mrs. Maloney thought up the most clever way to get away with murder. The officers had their hands on it, but because of their complex thought the answers washed away. The theme of “Lamb to the Slaughter,” by Roald Dahl is, sometimes it is too easy to overlook the obvious answer the world makes
From this viewpoint, by not taking matters into his own hands, George could have vindicated himself of blame. Instead, he would now have to go the rest of his life knowing he ultimately was the one who ended Lennie’s life. While it is true that he would not have been responsible, it is critical to understand that George was not so much concerned with how others might perceive him after the killing as he was concerned with the Lennie’s comfort in his moments before dying. If the angry mob had pulled the trigger, Lennie’s last emotion would be bewildering fear and distress. To avoid this piteous way of dying, George told Lennie to face the river while he told Lennie their favorite fairytale-like story of one day living on a farm.
However, on the other track is one person unable to move and trapped. This scenario can have two outcomes. You either pull the lever and sacrifice one person for the greater good of the greatest amount of people, or you leave it alone and let the train kill the five people. These two conflicting ideas, based on utilitarianism and deontological ethics, cause a moral dilemma worthy of contemplation. (Robinson).
But as his ties with the world of crime strengthen and he gets caught up in it, he becomes disillusioned with the usefulness of morality, and starts to see his own survival and domination as more important than morality in the conventional sense. The rise to power comes to be the most crucial goal, and moral principles are an obstacle to it. The more powerful the hero becomes, the more rapid is the decline of his ethics. This engrossment in power is demoralizing and causes the hero to dissociate from healthier aspects of life, such as his
I think free choice is way more responsible for destruction of Macbeth rather than fate is because it is like karma, what comes around goes around. Since Macbeth had killed so many people it makes sense how in the end Macbeth had soon been killed himself. Macbeth thought the only way to survive in peace, he had to kill a bunch of people, which is completely unreasonable. The witches had told him his fate and that he would become king soon enough but he decided to go against his fate and make his own free choices. Macbeth caused his own destruction by his own reckless actions.
Utilitarianism maintains that the surgeon do the act that produces the maximum overall amount of utility, namely, the surgeon must kill the one healthy patient to save the five others. Whilst our intuition and commonsense morality tells us that the surgeon is morally wrong in performing the organ transplants at the cost of an innocent life, Utilitarianism fails to acknowledge that such an act would be wrong on the basis that the surgeon would be violating the Hippocratic oath by inflicting harm as well as violating the healthy patient’s right to life, in order to bring about the greatest overall amount of happiness. In this example, which can be modified to counter utilitarian or consequentialist replies, it is clear that Utilitarianism provides the surgeon with the morally wrong answer as to which action he/she should perform and it is due to this that we are able to regard it as an unsuccessful moral theory. Utilitarianism can furthermore allow for what are typically regarded as immoral practices such as sadism. For the reason that a sadist could derive a great deal of
When Ahab decides to only kill Moby Dick, it cuts down all of the crew members paychecks. Also, when Ahab is on the trail to kill Moby Dick he almost destroys the ship in the process. The effect of the evil doing can help show the end result and who it will
The validity and even humanity in animal testing is something on the margins of morale, it is not something done out of joy, it is not pleasurable for the testers or the tested themselves. So there, we are given a reason to submit the simple question of whether animal testing should be permitted at all. Why not simply cut our losses and move on to greener pastures, after all it is indeed the definition of grotesque to experiment on living beings and people may have been right to protest and raise awareness for such cruel misconducts. There must be something that can be done. However, that line of thinking quickly clashes with the fact that with the help of exactly such testing, with the sacrifice of those animal lives, human lives are saved in return.