"Moral desert" is just a philosophical notion that a person deserves something based on his or her actions, and it is not cleared up by equality retributivism because equality retributivism calls for us to "behave barbarically to those who are guilty of barbaric crimes" (Nathanson). Another example of this is imagine a rapist. It would be barbaric and morally unacceptable to rape the rapist. Even though it may seem that those who kill should be killed themselves, it really isn't moral and is not universally
Additionally the utilitarian view also explains why capital punishment is justifiable in regards to comfort for the victim 's family and prevention of re-offending. Immanuel Kant is an influential philosopher, known for his work in ethics and a supporter of the death penalty. According to Avaliani (2004), Kant developed the first scientific approach to capital punishment (Avaliani, 2004). His theory argues that if a crime violates social laws then it is punishable. If an individual commits murder, then their punishment must be death.
This absolute, universal law goes against the schemes of Marlee and Nick. Kantians also follow the maxim that every person is an end and not a means to an end. Thus while some utilitarians would accept the scheme, a Kantian would not in any circumstance accept it as it is basically using the gun manufacturer and it’s workers as a mean to an end as stated earlier. Another Kantians would not accept the schemes of Nick and Marlee, and the result of said schemes is due to an important principle brought about by Immanuel Kant which denotes that “…no human being should be thought of or used merely as a means for someone else’s end” (Thiroux and Krasemann 55). That principle is referred to as the Practical Imperative.
Here, Martin Luther King Jr. is inferring that violence is not necessary to convey a message or fight for what one believes, and that attaining justice isn 't limited to the act of violence. King does not believe in using violence to fight violence and uses ethos to appeal to the audience: "Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly" (King 65). This is similar to the saying that two wrongs don 't make a right. King is acknowledging that being violent to respond to violence is only going to cause more chaos which in terms is not right; he is thinking about consequence. Malcolm X 's speech is fueled with anger and rage.
Dante put them in the Inferno rather than in Purgatorio, he pities the souls that commited suicide, and he gives the souls what they wanted in life and through death. He also is intelligent and thinks a lot about things that are beyond human comprehension which can make a human feel small, helpless, insignificant, and suicidal. All three of these points help to support the idea that Dante had suicidal tendencies and thoughts. Dante had to make a decision or opinion on what happens to those who kill themselves. He decided that they would go to hell.
The character of Francis Phelan in Ironweed by William Kennedy is haunted from decisions from his past. Many could argue that his thought processes of these actions are moral, while others believe they are instinctual. For example, the situation in which Francis killed Harold Allen, the scab. It could have been a conscious moral decision that taking the scabs life was the best way to protest or it could have been the subconscious natural instinct that told him to lift his arm and throw the stone. It is believable that Francis is controlled by his moral compass, which affects his actions (such as throwing the stone) throughout the book and demonstrates his caring personality and eye for justice because of his religious upbringing.
Jack Hunter’s “How Gun Control Kills” takes a more logical stance on the current issue of gun control. However, Hunter starts off using pathos, an appeal to emotion, and ethos, appealing to ethics. “Is there an evil worse than killing children?” Hunter asks in the opening paragraph. “Is there anything more heart-wrenching than the feeling of absolute helplessness in our inability to protect them?” The first question tests the reader’s ethics by making them think about how serious a child’s death is to them, and if they could think of anything worse. The second question uses pathos to invoke desperation and sorrow for those who have experienced a situation where they were helpless and could not protect someone, specifically an innocent child.
Furthermore, just decision making should not be interfered with in the face of death because we simply do not know that death is a bad thing. Socrates explains this further in passage 29a, “You see, fearing death, gentlemen, is nothing other than thinking one is wise when one isn’t, since it’s thinking one knows what one doesn’t know. I mean, no one knows whether death may not be the greatest of all goods for people, but they fear it as if they knew for certain that it’s the worst thing of all. Yet surely this is the most blameworthy ignorance of thinking one knows what one doesn’t know,” (Plato, 44). In this passage, Socrates conveys that because man does not know what the consequences of their own death are, whether it is the worst thing or best thing that can happen to them, it is selfish and irrelevant to let their irrational fears of the unknown interfere with their lifestyle and decisions if they believe themselves to be leading a just and honorable
It means that doctor and patient know and intentionally consent to give and receive a dose to end life mainly driven by a terminal and painful illness. The main factor that has driven this debate is that both are considered assisted dying and are an act to take the decision to intentionally end the life of a human being. It has generated moral, ethical (including patient, family and doctors), religious and legal dilemmas since many people see Euthanasia as a suicide masked as a mercy or compassionate death. The main difference is that euthanasia is considered a mercy kill or death because the physician administer a lethal medicine. However, in the case of PAS, the physician provides the dose or prescription for the self-administration by the patient.
Montag killed Beatty he thought what he was doing was right. Montag was justified for killing Beatty because he thought he was protecting himself and Faber, Beatty had to die for society to change, and Beatty wanted to die. Montags anger towards Beatty may have persuaded his decisions and made him do what he did to Beatty. In the event that Montag killed Beatty, he was justified because he was protecting Faber and himself. In Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury explains that Beatty kept pushing Montag’s limits.