The defense’s argument that the narrator is legally insane is flawed; it disregards the evidence and facts that prove that the narrator is not insane by legal definition. First of all, the narrator knew what he did was wrong. In his confession, the narrator states that, “You should have seen how careful I was to put the body where no one could find it. First I cut off the head, then the arms and the legs. I was careful not to let a single drop of blood fall on the floor.
Introduction Dr. Gress’s view that the results of a genetic test should be withheld from patients if they are positive is paternalistic, immoral, and does not consider the autonomy of the individual. He holds the position that notifying patients of their genetic status is too harmful and that it is a doctor’s duty to withhold information that could be devastating; however, in doing so, he violates many ethical principles that doctors should exercise. This paper will give an overview on the topic of genetic testing and the ethical and moral problems associated with it, an analysis rejecting Dr. Gress’s view, and a response to an objection to the thesis of which this paper is based on. Presentation of Topic Medical professionals have been
As a whistleblower, he took it upon himself to write what was the truth, not just how it was meant to be perceived. The meaning in this is that what the people of the colonies were supposed to accept was that while many royal governors and judges were corrupt, the people of the land were not supposed to comment on that. They were supposed to simply accept this, regardless of whether it did them harm or not. John P. Zenger would have none of that. He saw these unethical men for what they were, and acted to expose them.
He had stolen files that were not his, and most of all, he did it without the owner’s consent. Even though he was unaware of his actions being considered as stealing, what he did was still morally wrong. On the other side, the supporters of Aaron used the utilitarian theory. They did not care much as to what they were violating or what can be or will be violated, because they believe that their purpose and output is justifiable. In my opinion, I believe that the best ethical theory to be applied in this kind of situation is the social contract theory, simply because it stops conflict.
Then almost immediately after Alex contradicts himself by thinking “ In my book and the blind eyes of justice, the fact that a man had it coming doesn’t make killing him right “ (Patterson 194). This shows Alex’s true opinion in that he believes that killing a man who was clueless doesn’t make it right. It also shows he thinks everyone is innocent until proven guilty just like most cops are caught not and that he believes only courts can issue punishment not some group of vigilante
Because people rarely self reflect, they would not change or improve a bad morality. Heinrich Himmler was sympathetic to his victims, yet he was a moral man and followed what he was told would do good for the world. Jonathan Edwards failed to realize his morals were bad and continued to believe them until his death. While Wilfred Owen completely got rid of his morals and proceeded to write poems about the horrors of war. Because people can recognize live by horrible morals, it does not necessarily mean change will happen.
Having seen how Javert has served legally, attempted the best he could while under the government’s thumb, and even how he tried to stop Valjean under the false interpretation of what he stood for, we can see that Javert is in no way a villain. In fact, Les Miserable’s true villains are the horrible Thenardiers, as well as the corrupt government of the time. Both Valjean and Javert are stuck in a miscommunication loop of what is good and evil. Javert is not a villain in the novel, but rather a warning. Although all may seem grim, his silence did not solve anything around him.
During this same conversation, Haemon argues that the people of Thebes themselves do not like the order for Antigone to die. King Creon quickly refutes that “[he is] king, and responsible only to [himself. ]” King Creon believes that he only needs to worry about himself. This shows that King Creon did not realize his full responsibility as king, both to his family and his people. King Creon was too prideful, and did not realize that he must honor the dead, and that he cannot kill his own family for doing it for him.
Due to simplistic duality, Beowulf is unable to see that not everyone is entirely good or evil. He views Hrothgar as the perfect king, but is he? Although his intentions of keeping his people out of harm's way are virtuous, he still wants to kill Grendel without ever giving him a reason, sure he attacks Herot hall but the narrator doesn’t mention anything that could have invoked him to do so. Although his intentions of keeping his people out of harm's way are virtuous. Since simplistic duality means there is no in between for any subject matter, in Beowulf’s eyes, Grendel can only be evil and not a mixture of both.