James Rachel's Criticism Of The Drowning Cousin

Yet, one must be causa sui to achieve true moral responsibility. Hence, nothing is able to truly be morally responsible. Strawson 's whole purpose of writing the article is to change anyone 's mind who says that we should be responsible for the way we are and what we do as a result of the way we are. He believes we are lacking freedom and control of doing so. He argues that if we do something for a reason, that is how we are, so we must be responsible.

I do agree with Strawson and I think that he is right. I do not believe that someone can be truly morally responsible for anything that they do; however, it would be appropriate and well deserving is moral responsibility held a standard. If someone does something that creates a great change in the world, they should definitely have true moral responsibility for it. Ultimately, I know that that is also impossible because making a great change in the world come from the way we are, and we are not truly morally responsible for

To remove this conflict there must be a change or an acceptance of, in this case, the false premise. Therefore with the aid of the second, pluralistic ignorance; whereby believing that those in authority are more informed, and everybody else for that matter, removes the need to question the validity of the premise. Here the power of authority and the social group adds its weight through a collective consciousness (Zimbardo, 2009). Therefore, the conflicted mind finds itself that tributary of least resistance via social

The message of remembrance is more aptly portrayed in Jane Yolen’s novel than in Donna Deitch’s film version of The Devil’s Arithmetic. The movie version fails to express the importance of remembrance because it doesn’t illustrate the Holocaust as accurately as the novel. If society remembers and educates themselves on the issue, then they avoid the risk of having to face another genocide. However, if society chooses to forget and ignore, then another genocide could easily take place right under their noses without them suspecting a thing. Society must always remember these tragedies.

Something potentially responsible for this phenomenon is the Backfire Effect. David McRaney describes the Backfire Effect with great accuracy in his article “The Backfire Effect”: “coming or going, you stick to your beliefs instead of questioning them. When someone tries to correct you, tries to dilute your misconceptions, it backfires and strengthens them instead” (1). This unbreakable resolve for maintaining beliefs in contradiction to logic prevents us from seeing truth effectively. However, what drives the Backfire Effect?

The murder of Kitty should not lead to blame and pointing fingers in this situation, it should lead to a higher sense of community and finding a way to prevent murders in any city. Professor Mahzarin Banaji provides a very relevant point of the bystander effect and the diffusion of responsibility, explaining why many people didn't do anything or report it. Due to these two psychological circumstances, the witnesses who didn't report the events should not be held responsible for Ms. Genovese’s

He also feared that conditioning would overcome the importance of the individual. Huxley was intelligent and rational, but people debate if his fears came true in accordance to present day times. With free thought comes disagreement, and with disagreement comes change in society. That is why, when Aldous Huxley wrote Brave New World, he emphasized the terrors of having no dissension in a civilization. In the

The book provide examples of authorities, such as the Governor Edwin Edwards, who acknowledge that the criminal system is flawed and demands reform. Yet, because of political reasons, they prefer to ignore facts and not be the one responsible for contradicting the system and risking their job. Prejean proves that by choosing to let injustice to happen, even if it is not in their power to change, those authorities are being as immoral as the penal system itself. I find that the most valuable message the author is trying to provide us is how important personal responsibility is in order to fight for justice. By the end of the book, the reader understands that we are responsible not only for our own actions, but also for the fact that we are aware of injustice and, yet, chooses to do nothing about it.

This article talks about physician-assisted deaths from a Kantian theory standpoint, in the article it states that “the decision to ends one’s life is itself not autonomous” (Dinh, 478). Autonomy follows the idea of making own decisions for you, not others without inappropriate influence; Kant believes that this procedure violates autonomy and therefore should not be done. Although the article is slated from Kant’s viewpoint, it is also important to remember the other viewpoint. This topic is morally important in our society because such procedures occur today in our society.

To warrant my statement, the theory of moral responsibilities and utilitarian approach will be taken into consideration. To impartially resolve a moral dilemma, one ought to choose between the options that has greater weight. In order to determine the weights of moral responsibilities, a theory is greatly needed. One theory can be taken from Michael J. Sandel’s book entitled

However, Diodotus understand that the Mytilenians should not be left unchecked, he agrees with Cleon in concern of the future but not the death sentence of the Mytilenians. For if they do impose the death penalty it would only cost the country instead, he suggest something else, “we should be looking for a method by which, empowering moderation in our punishments, we can in the future secure ourselves the full use of those cities which bring us important contributions” (p.221). He brings up the error in which led them to the revolt for by forcefully subduing a free country it lead its populace to assert its dominance, so the country at this point must care for them to avoid having the same thing happen. And if they choose to continue with the death

According to Elizabeth Harman, an action that kills an animal even painlessly, is an action that harms the animal. If we indeed have strong moral reasons against causing pain to animals, Harman argues we must also have strong moral reasons against killing animals. This raises an objection to the Surprising Claim, which states that we have strong reasons against causing intense pain to animals, but only weak reasons against killing animals. The First View claims that killing an animal deprives it of a positive benefit (future life) but does not harm the animal.

“The punishment for sin is death”; “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”; “karma shows that you get what you deserve”; all of these are long-standing, well-known perspectives in regards to wrongdoers’ consequences. The common view of justice, tracing back to Hammurabi and the Bible, is that the person who does evil deserves the same, or equal, evil to be brought upon them. However, the modern approach to due process is much more complicated, and, as many countries agree, far more humane and reasonable. The United States differs from these countries on the grounds of capital punishment; more specifically, the death penalty. In the film “Dead Man Walking”, death row inmate Matthew Poncelet was convicted, and executed, over the murder of a