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. So, go out and spread the message that there are other ways of achieving things than extremism.
In preference to cater only the weak as mentioned. In addition, saying that this theory cannot be proven right or wrong loses its credibility to be valued by others since it cannot be verified in the Judge’s eyes. 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.
However, the debate is not straightforward as the potential for abuse or harm is prevailing society's established prohibitions against assisting suicide. Within this debate, some of society views assisted suicide as being morally wrong and believe it should not be legalized regardless of individual’s particular case. 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.
Next, he puts forward a more moderate version of the principle by replacing equal moral significance with anything of moral significance. The nature of the principle, according to Singer, is contentious, for if applied has the potential to change everything about our values and lives. One of the reasons as to why that is the case is that the principle does not care for the proximity of the one
that values differ with cultures.” Due to the effect of changing moral values, one cannot deny the value that another believes to be true. As stated before, the culture that allows people to commit child scarification believes it to be a morally good thing since it serves as a form of faith to God. 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.
"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.” He supports this position for four reasons.
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. According to benedict morality depends on each culture behavior, and how society mold
He states that ethical principles must be universal and that ethics are distinctively human. 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.