This objection states that the guidance that lex provides is often wrong as it requires the state to be responsible for inflicting the same deeds on criminals which ultimately compromises the morality of law enforcement (186). This objection is relatively easy to support, however, there is potential to highlight the shortcomings within its argument. For example, it can be argued that there are rare situations in which rape can be justified and therefore not a punishable offence. The claim that there is a situation that rape could ever be considered a feasible action is preposterous in today's society, however, it is a situation in which this objection could be
Within this difference, legal paternalism claims that their interference only comes to preserve the liberty of the person in question, while the harm principle says that interference restricts the person’s liberty (the only exception being willing slavery). After carefully considering the implications that both the harm principle and legal paternalism carry, I find that legal paternalism has justification within law, and not the harm principle. Both principles have their strengths and weaknesses, however legal paternalism specifically addresses the harm principle, and even manages to construct the argument that the harm principle allows for paternalism under Mill’s one
The argument that no action can be perfectly harmful to only one member of a society justifies with the Harm Principle any and all intrusions on individual freedom by pointing out a possible harm towards another. Mill states “Whenever, in short there is definite damage, or a of risk damage, either to an individual or to the public, the case is taken out of the province of liberty, and placed in that of morality or Law”. This statement is entirely open to the interpretation of those who would implement it. Each society’s definition of risk and damage is subject to their own discretion. It is unclear whether psychological damage is included, or only physical, corporeal harm.
“I believe that more people would be alive today if there were a death penalty.” -Nancy Reagan Most people would be shocked to hear that the death penalty saves lives. Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court decided Gregg v. Georgia in 1976, capital punishment has been legally administered in 31 states in order to punish those who commit grievous crimes and harms to society. What makes capital punishment superior to other forms of punishment is that it generates the most happiness for all those actually or potentially affected by carrying it out. From a utilitarian perspective, capital punishment is morally justified because it maximizes human happiness. To argue that capital punishment is justified, one must initially state the possible objectives
Opponents of the death penalty often argue that judicial executions violate the condemned prisoner’s right to life, but has not the prisoner already forfeited their right to live when he/she decided to take the life of other? “Doing them harm creates a moral debt to them, that is, you owe them an increase in their well-being-as-wealth. Justice is when the moral books are balanced” (Winston). It was the initial act of the criminal that led him to this consequence. Right to life for humans should only be limited to those who have respect for the rights of others.
Crime has been defined in general as an act or omission that has been forbidden by law and is usually associated with a sanction. John Stuart Mill, in his Harm Principle stated that an act should be criminalised based on the harm it has inflicted on other people. The State is justified in criminalising acts that crates unjustifiable and serious risks to others. A victimless crime is when a particular act does not have any victim or when the only person who is affected is the person committing it or when the person who will be classified as a victim has consented to such an act. As there is no clear victim in this case the principle of harm will not be applicable here and would not be considered as an act that can be criminalised.
I considered things to be wrong because they instinctively felt morally questionable and because they decreased social welfare. After going through these two courses the question of what is objectively wrong is much more complex. There are acts that have only one of the said components, either it is instinctively morally wrong but could technically increase social welfare (for example if a poor person steals a loaf of bread for his starving children, or a person shoots at another but doesn’t kill them), or it is morally right but decreases social welfare (for example putting a person who accidently killed another in prison). The juxtaposition of deontology and utilitarianism became much clearer and at the same time a lot more confusing for me. As a result of these two courses I now look at what is right and wrong in our society through a new lens, or maybe even two lenses- does it increase social welfare and is it morally
Utilitarianism Justification of Exam Cheating Utilitarianism is one of the best ethical approaches that can be used to justifying a right action from a wrong action by focusing on the outcome of the path taken. The most important thing is that the action taken to achieve a certain outcome has to be of the greater benefit of the society at large. Whether the outcome is bad, it can be used to morally justify some deeds regardless of how inhumane they can be. On the other side, utilitarianism also does not justify everything because it is difficult at time to predict whether the actions taken will be good or bad at the end. Additionally, values cannot be accounted for.
The American Bar Association, has strong convictions against the death penalty. Their reasoning is because an individual’s life could be affected by ignorance of an attorney or neglect of proper counseling. (“The Litigation Process of Capital Defendants is Unfair”) This concept is very straight and forward, since a defendant may not receive the proper litigation from an attorney, and their life, the defendant’s, is in jeopardy, this causes a large amount of unhappiness, along with physical and emotional pain and anguish. This pain and unhappiness, again directly goes against the ideas of principle of utility. Within the legal realm of the death penalty one clear proponent against the concept, the