So much compassion that he could win the love of his underlings [...] But somebody with that much compassion could never be the killer we needed.” (Scott Card, 342) His explanation demonstrates how he believes that sacrificing Ender’s feelings by lying to him is necessary to defeat the buggers to save humanity from possible destruction, emphasizing the theme of manipulation for the common good. They make Ender do what he hates most, hurting others, by isolating him into not trusting anybody, moulding him to the perfect commander, then tricking him into believing he was only battling simulations.
First, Thoreau was an advocate for the emotional detachment of material or property as we see in the “Walden,” (Economic chapter E). Thoreau’s belief that what a man owns doesn’t implicate who he is as a person. Falls in line with Epictetus claims of property not being under our control. Reason being, is it might
As per this theory the outcome of any action should minimize the pain and maximize the pleasure. The utilitarianism have two groups one is the Act utilitarian’s focun on the effects of individual actions (Such as Nathuram Godse’s assassination of Mahatma Gandhi) and another is rule utilitarian’s those focus on the effects of types of actions (such as killing or stealing) Utilitarians believe that the purpose of morality is to make life better by increasing the amount of good things (such as pleasure and happiness) in the world and decreasing the amount of bad things (such as pain and unhappiness). They reject moral codes or systems that consist of commands or taboos that are based on customs, traditions, or orders given by leaders
Also, the unnecessary violence many colonizers displayed towards African-Americans was only a reflection of themselves. White colonizers dehumanized African’s because they did not want to view them as themselves and this is proven true in “The Hidden Origin of Slavery”: “Chain him, either chain him or expel his black shape from our midst, before we realize that he is ourselves”. White-supremacy dehumanized both populations making it easier to mistreat them. Capitalism provided the initial intent for dehumanization, and white-supremacy solidified the racial
We believe that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Once proven guilty, a person should receive punishment. This is the purpose of the justice system. The whole rule of double jeopardy defies this, not bringing justice to those who deserve it as it forbids for the accused to be tried again. It will be more beneficial to society as a whole if we abolish double jeopardy, to correct the mistakes of the justice system and essential for progression.
The right thing to do would have been for both sides to concede and negotiate for both sides to be happy or at least adequate. Because both sides were to prideful nothing beneficial happens actually the reverse. The butterfly effect comes into play This example shows that doing right thing is not just in black and white most of time theirs Gary in that as a society we must sort through to find what's
Reiman opposes capital punishment for several reasons. Reiman rejects the retribution rationale because retribution dehumanizes the person doing the punishing. As an alternative, Reiman advocates for humane punishment that is equal in severity, and that does not reduce deterrence. He stresses the importance of equal severity because a lack of equality will send the wrong message to society. Reiman believes strongly that: “[t]he available research by no means clearly indicates that the death penalty reduces the incidence of homicide more than life imprisonment does.”
Usually beliefs and values are determined by the personal concept of good and evil. Beliefs and values develop accordingly to the individual idea of good. They essentially represent the best actions and things for a person and, very often, for the society. People have often asked themselves, throughout the time, whether what makes an action right or wrong is the motive for which the action is carried out or its consequences and results. Deontological ethics (or deontology) and consequentialism, two opposite branches of philosophy, developed to answer those question.
For the reason that Utilitarianism only considers one normative factor, the maximisation of overall happiness, and because it considers all pleasure/happiness to have value, it often conflicts with our common-sense morality and allows for great individual deviation from social norms. It is in this way that Utilitarianism allows for injustice, immoral actions and the violation of human rights. I shall provide an example that demonstrates that in some instances Utilitarianism can be counterintuitive and furthermore give us the morally wrong answer as to which act we ought to perform. The first example involves a surgeon who is faced with the decision of killing one healthy patient, harvesting their organs and transplanting them into five patients who are dying in order to save their lives or doing nothing and allowing the five sick patients to die. 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.
Chapter 8 begins by talking about the classical version of the theory of Utilitarianism. This classical version was developed by three philosophers: Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, and Henry Sidgwick. According to the author, "Classical Utilitarianism can be summed up in three propositions: (a) The morality of an action depends solely on the consequences of the action. (b) An action's consequences matter only insofar as they involve the greater or lesser happiness of individuals. (c)