Ethical Decisions: Objectivism, Formalism, And Virtue Ethics

Different Ethical perspectives use different reasoning and thoughts to determine whether a decision is ethical or not. In our scenario, a terrorist planned a bombing on a bus that was carrying school children. She added bolts and nails to create the most carnage possible, and made sure the bomb would go off after the bus was at full capacity. The bomb killed 14 children and wounded 24 more. She was later arrested, prosecuted, and sentenced to death. Each ethical perspective would consider different aspects of the death penalty decision to determine if it would in fact be considered ethical.
Utilitarian Ethics, Religious Ethics, Dual-Life Value, Objectivism, Formalism, and Virtue Ethics determine ethical decisions differently. In the case of

I believe that Objectivist would see the death penalty as morally permissible. Under Objectivism, Objectivist are against those who take by force and fraud. In this scenario, the terrorist took 14 lives by force simply for her own self interest. The murder of the 14 children also would an attack against the public, which would then give police, under objectivism, the right to retaliate since the terrorist attacked the public as a whole. Religious ethics is a system that I believe would fall directly in the middle. I believe that under this ethical system, one could argue both ways on whether the death penalty is morally permissible. On one hand, we have the rule to treat others as you want to be treated, and other bible passages such as Exodus 21:23-25 which could be use to support the death penalty. While others could argue that interpretations could be wrong. What if it is not our job to carry out this penalty, and it is God’s job to do the judging and penalizing. Since we must choose, I believe most people would argue against the death penalty under Religious Ethics. As a Christian, we are taught to often forgive those that sin against us. Forgiveness is a very strong theme throughout the Bible, and I believe that under religious ethics, most would believe that we need to leave it up to God to make those decisions, it is unethical for us to play God. Lastly, Dual-life value Ethics would

Seeing that the death penalty does nothing in terms of future deterrence makes everything feel wrong. It is as if the death penalty provides no benefit to society. Furthermore, I feel like the death penalty allows us to play God. We suddenly get to decide who lives and who dies on a whim. I struggle to see this being okay when we have the cheaper option of life without parole. I also believe that the death penalty can offer an easy way out for some offenders, which is not right. I believe that life without parole creates an even stronger example of the inmate when they receive life sentences that are very long. Some families have to live the rest of their lives without their loved ones because of the offenders actions and I think the offender should have to think about those actions for a long time to