However, this does not justify the idea that a person should be killed because of killing other just like a rapist should also be rapped. Besides, the difference between revenge and retribution is that retribution should be restrained and measured. Therefore, death penalty should not be allowed as it fails to act and fulfill the original expectation( Bloomberg). Every coin has two sides. If some people agree with one side, there must be another group of people disagree with this
There are pros to capital punishment, like that they killed someone so “they deserve it or that it provides the only way that a society could get over their loss one”(Schmalleger). There are a lot of reasons to be against or for capital punishment depending on what you believe is
Doing what is right means more about in conformity with fact, correct in judgement, or truth. In contrast, doing what is good means more of doing what is kind, friendly, or morally exceptional. Kant states how doing your duty because it is your duty is the only reason that has moral worth, and says that if you do something good for someone, you do it because that is the morally right thing, and not because it is a morally good
After all, no one person wants to be treated as a tool. The greater good is all fine and good, but a person’s individual good is also as important. However, arguments notwithstanding, if people solely follow this punishment theory, then yes, their actions can be justified. Of course, many immoral acts can be justified under this theory which makes it a very dangerous theory, if it is the only theory society is
So this duty is hard to fulfill as it is circumscribed and selective. Even when the two duties clash, like the John and Mary example, we can only help Mary by killing John, the negative duty is probably to take precedence. This is also an explanation of why killing is morally worse than letting die, killing is ‘a breach of negative duty’ and letting die is ‘a breach of positive duty’. If we let someone die, that person is no worse off for our presence than absence but has a possibility to live due to our presence. So fail to save the person do not worsen his situation.
Even though the death penalty may seem like a way to help victims and make criminals suffer, it is not effective. It does more harm than good. One reason is that the death penalty is not allowing the offender to suffer. If the inmate lacks remorse and doesn 't care if he or she dies or not, how is killing them is teaching them that killing is wrong. In some cases, living a life with no freedom and isolation are worse than living at all.
Duty as in that we are morally obligated to act in accordance with a certain set of principles and rules regardless of outcome. This theory asserts that an action is considered 'morally good ' because of some characteristic of the action itself, not because the result of the action is good. Expressions such as "virtue is its own reward" and Duty for duty 's sake" are used to attest to the believe that in deontological ethics, some acts are morally obligatory regardless of their consequences for human welfare. Since utilitarian 's believe that all actions must seek to produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people, this would still apply even if that act harms an innocent person. A simple example would be that if a surgeon could save three lives by harvesting the organs of one healthy person, then this is entirely acceptable as it 's helping the greater number.
In addition, one should not perform a prohibited action even though it could bring uncountable benefits to society (Kant’s Deontological ethics). Deontology is the opposite of consequentialism. Deontology only focuses on an action that is right or wrong without regarding the consequences On the other hand, consequentialism consists on having the most positive outcome on every situation. (“Deontological Ethics”). The patient and doctor relationship should be based around trust and honesty.
What if they raped someone and recieved the death penalty? Does the punishment fit the crime? Capital punishment is quite controversial. Many argue against it saying this form of punishment is unconstitutional. However, those convicted are given a reasonable punishment and opportunities to have their cases reassessed if need be.
Virtue ethics solely emphasizes admirable characteristic traits rather than the actions performed by that individual. However, some argue that the charge of virtue ethics is impractical and it doesn’t provide any rules making moral decisions in complex situations. Those that are virtuous often do not need to over think temptations that
Sometimes a friend has views that either do not agree with our own, or appear to not even be consistent with each other. In the case of Sarah and Jamie, utilitarian ethical standpoints are brought into question. Utilitarianism is “the doctrine that the rightness of actions is to be judged by their consequences” (Shafer-Landau 78, 2015). It is a form of consequentialism that examines the consequences of actions, and if those actions produce happiness and pleasure (overall, not just for one person) and minimizes the amount of suffering, then that action is correct and morally right. Typically to determine this, one would perform the Happiness Calculus for actions A and B, and whichever one produced the greatest amount of pleasure is the action
Aristotle, according to me, has a rather satisfactory counter-argument to Glaucon’s opinions in the Ring of Gyges Story. It is true that what is good for one might not be necessarily good for another and if doing something evil makes one feel good then that particular individual is essentially very immoral. An individual who is not as deep into immorality as this particular person would feel a level of guilt if they did something evil. Glaucon’s proposal that good people lack the good things evil behavior brings is, therefore, nullified. Secondly, it makes a lot of sense to think of ethics in relation to character as compared to actions or even intentions.
For example, we cannot appeal to the rights of future people because there is no way we can communicate with them. Furthermore, we can morally make these decisions, even though they may be bad for some future people, on the assumption that they will have a life much better than ours (Parfit,