It is unjust that anyone should die because they disagree with another’s political, religious or other views. Terrible events like the Holocaust and 9/11 could have been avoided if people stopped looking to extremism as the solution to all problems. When an idea had less pros than cons, it is only natural that it is discouraged. Extremism should only be resorted to in the most extreme situations that require it.
With this being said, this strengthens the argument the Judge is trying to get across because he felt the Kid failed to obey the natural order since he was more in touch with his human nature. The fact
I stand to agree with the statement, it is not acceptable to anyone to commit a wrong against the other, it is wrong for one to fail to observe ethical principle for not believing in the existence of God. One can affirm to theological voluntarism while being morally skeptic cannot affirm without being morally skeptic. The statement is correct, one can do what is generally expected of morally, he/she can be skeptical or not, but fundamentally should observe moral principles. Normative theological voluntarism and moral skepticism is not a coherent combination of views. The two can exist divergently, for the view of being morally skeptical and believing in normative theological voluntarism or believing in normative theological voluntarism and not being morally skeptical.
In addition, that professional standards and legislation should not be changed. Others hold the view that assisted suicide is ethically legitimate in exceptional cases. Finally within the debate, some people would advocate that assisted suicide should be a morally and legally acceptable choice in the care of terminal ill patients. As a
Although the practice may sound morally wrong for another culture, denying one’s culture only perceives that the other culture is morally right. Also if one does not abide by their value, then one will feel as if they feel they are committing a wrong act. Values are changing, not only through cultures, but also in time. For example, divorce was a morally wrong value.
"Moral desert" is just a philosophical notion that a person deserves something based on his or her actions, and it is not cleared up by equality retributivism because equality retributivism calls for us to "behave barbarically to those who are guilty of barbaric crimes" (Nathanson). Another example of this is imagine a rapist. It would be barbaric and morally unacceptable to rape the rapist. Even though it may seem that those who kill should be killed themselves, it really isn't moral and is not universally
Reiman opposes capital punishment for several reasons. Reiman rejects the retribution rationale because retribution dehumanizes the person doing the punishing. As an alternative, Reiman advocates for humane punishment that is equal in severity, and that does not reduce deterrence. He stresses the importance of equal severity because a lack of equality will send the wrong message to society. Reiman believes strongly that: “[t]he available research by no means clearly indicates that the death penalty reduces the incidence of homicide more than life imprisonment does.”
Rachels and Benedict disagree about how relative is morality.in one hand Rachels express that morality is not relative, because from his point of view what is right or wrong cannot be based in one society code; it is clear that what is approved in one culture can be disapproved in other, so there is no absolute true nor a single standard to follow. Rachels state that there are some moral rules that all societies will have in common, because those rules are necessary for society to exist. According to this he think that there is some universal codes that have to be maintain for a healthy balance. Benedict in the other hand believes that morality is relative.
Kant also thought it was possible for pure reason to discover objective ethical truths. Kant believed that ethical truths must be categorical, universal, and be the product of reason. Kant’s categorical imperative states that a person should always act in such a way that they could will that act should be a universal law. This means that Kant thought that it was best to do the right thing, even if the person didn’t want to. This view of ethics focuses on what is right to do.
Whereas one cannot find justification in George’s actions, In contrast George reason would be the ten commandments it says thou shall not kill. Then again others may say they don’t believe in God. Second, George is not justified due to the Law. One example is that murder is murder and can’t be undone. Even though others may say they have an excuse for the murder.
For example, Kant leads way to for readers to “Consider the question: May I when in difficulties make a promise that I intend not to keep?” (Kant, 1785). Furthermore, a law that can allow promise breaking would completely contradict the very nature of a promise, which would make for a dilemma when communicating since this requires telling the truth, thus making this universal law to relentlessly aid in difficulties. Residing back into euthanasia and/or physician assisted suicide, “Kant would not agree with anybody who out of self-love decides to take his/her life. This is because this is a system that aims at destroying life; hence this maxim could not possibly exist as a universal law” (Odianosen,