Also, on page 220 it talks about Booth not Feeling empowered to send a warning or any other command directly to Turner. If he had done this it might have saved the lives lost on the Lusitania. There were other things wrong, like the contradicting messages that the Lusitania received, but the ship decided to go onward. Turner had another problem, by opening himself up to the U boats by circling out in the sea, while waiting for high tide so he could cross into the Mersey Bar. On page 242, when people started exclaiming “torpedo,” it also talks about Turner not having enough time and enough knowledge about avoiding torpedoes, it might 've saved the whole ship and maybe could 've avoided the torpedo entirely.
The 9 barrels that were found empty, could have leaked. Those 9 were more flammable than the rest of the barrel. When they found out that those barrels were leaking, Briggs thought it was too dangerous to stay on board, so he ordered the crew to go into the lifeboats. The plan was to wait behind the Mary Celeste, the boat connected to the Mary Celeste with ropes, but the ropes snapped and the crew went into the open sea. Eventually, the cargo of the ship didn’t explode and the Mary Celeste remained intact.
Another opinion is that the fish actually did attach to Mark Antony’s boat and slowed it down so much the battle was already lost. If they had won the Battle of Actium maybe life now would’ve been very different. The same thought can be applied to if Cleopatra and Mark Antony had survived longer than they did or even died a different
277). By using this approach, the decision made depends on what type of person one is. One may believe that by flipping the switch he or she acted as a hero by saving five lives and only ending one life. However, one may also believe that the trolley car was already on path to kill five people, and by deciding to flip the switch, he or she took a murderous action by choosing to change the trolley car’s direction and kill someone else. When taking the virtues approach to decide what to do in an ethical situation, the decision one believes to be the right action to take depends on the type of person that he or she
In my perspective, the situations are killing one versus killing five. The footbridge scenario is a personal and intentional murdering, while on the other hand, the switch scenario is impersonal as you pull the switch and the death of the person is considered a side effect. Nevertheless, the final results of each case will be same, specifically in regard to the count of humans who lived and humans who died. Personally, I think that if you would pull the switch I would feel that the death of the man was not a side effect but also an intentional killing as the result of that action was clear. I agree that you had a good intention of saving five lives, however, people who would pull the switch have more than one good intention, and this does not guarantee that deeply in their minds they did not have another intention to kill that person.
In what instances is murder acceptable? Though controversial and very case-specific, murder seems like it is decidedly unjustifiable. In nature, the word itself sounds very bitter, as the action is often driven from basic human emotion rather than morals that are taught and generally accepted. However, there are some cases where murder defies its dark and grim nature to become something potentially helpful for the safety of others, like when George killed Lennie at the end of Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck. George and Lennie arrive at a ranch in Soledad, California as migrant workers in the 1920’s.
There seem to be multiple reasons for this murder, but none of them were really substantial enough to commit a murder. At the other end of the spectrum, we have got John Ryan, which early in the movie is presented as a racist and as an abuser. However, later on in the movie, he saves a woman that he had previously abused from dying in a car accident, now making him a hero. What is interesting here is that many of the roles in the story are either good or bad, only depending on their perception of the race conflict. There
It is true that sharks are one of the animal kingdom’s most vicious predators; however, it is important to note that humans were not naturally included to the sharks’ list of preys. Encounters between sharks and humans only became disastrous when the latter had trespassed and disturbed its domain so as a result, the sharks perceive humans as a threat to them or to their pups if they are nursing. In some ways, “Jaws” provided justification for humans to slaughter sharks, henceforth; it had received some negative reviews from other spectators and critics. Unfortunately, the number of sharks in the wild is decreasing globally. The movie had encouraged resorts owner near the beaches to show the brutality of the shark instead of imposing the advocacies that would protect these sea creatures such as limiting the passage of people where sharks were known to thrive.
When victims are being killed or injured, many of the families would want to make sure the criminal would attempt another crime. On the night of August 31, Kermit Alexander’s “...mother, sister and two nephews were cold-heartedly shot to death” (Top 10 Pro & Con Arguments). Putting an individual on this penalty would result in the person not harming anybody else, and gives the victim’s family a closure knowing the killer is gone. Additionally, a perspective on why the death penalty should not be eradicated is because of its deterrence. David Muhlhausen, a researcher says that “between executions and reduced murder rates...
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.
He got sent to indian island by being called and offered a job. What he did was operate on Louis Cless, while he was intoxicated. His actions resulted in her death. Although this crime was serious and involved death, it was not extremely violent. What happened was not meant to, if he was not intoxicated this probably would never have happened.
For someone to be found guilty of murder, they should at least requisite the motive or intent of purposely trying to bring physical pain to the victim. As a result of, the victim knowingly or unknowingly having trickled a nerve of theirs. George was trying to do the complete opposite. In this case, all he wanted to do was avoid the town’s men killing his beloved friend Lennie, and ensure he died the most comfortable and least painful way possible George did not have the mental state to kill Lennie, Lennie Smalls to him is what some might call “a brother from another mother.” My client dedicated his life to ensure Lennie’s safety and well-being. For instance, Lennie once put George in the circumstance of having to flee a state and his job because Lennie committed a
Due to no special care, he could’ve died. Brain damage and broken/infected leg could have led to his mysterious death. As you can see there are many causes of King Tut’s death but we think that murder was the cause because it had a lot about the suspects. Like how they found the wedding rings and how they told us that the two men were the only ones around King
There were overbuilt railroads and companies had outgrown their markets, farms and businesses borrowed heavily for the expansion (P. 467). The panic also spread to Wall Street, where the prices of stocks fell rapidly. Investments were declined, and all consumer purchases, wages, and prices fell. The Panic of 1893 deepened into depression (P. 468). The depression led people to reconsider the roles of the government, the economy, and as well with society.
A Utilitarian would argue that you should kill the innocent villager because even though you’re killing him you are saving five others who are innocent. In the end, it is better to save five people and kill one than to get five people killed. On the contrary, a deontologist would argue that it is wrong to kill anyone, and that killing one person who is innocent is equally as bad as letting the others get killed. This point of view would allow the killing to be done by the Nazi’s and not someone else, so that person would not have to worry about their morals being affected. In this case I would agree with the Utilitarian’s stance because everyone who has the potential of being killed in this scenario is innocent and it is better to save the