Question One - Not killing (Pros and Cons) He believes that murder is wrong because he identifies as a “revolutionary” and in his opinion, this is quite different from being a murderer. “I am a revolutionary, not a murder” The barber realizes that murdering Captain Torres will create more problems than it would solve. The barber, when making the decision, asks himself “What do you gain from it?” he answered “nothing”. So, the barber would not gain anything from killing him. He would not have to worry about the army hunting him down after killing the Captain.
In this scenario, a trolley car is traveling uncontrollably towards helpless individuals. One faces the decision to let the trolley car continue on its current path, killing five people, or to flip a switch which will change the trolley car’s direction and only kill one person (Sokol 269). Faced with this ethical dilemma, there are two different ethical standards that support one’s decision in whether or not he or she flips the switch. The utilitarian approach suggests that one choose the outcome that would do less overall harm and, therefore, do more good (Meyer et al. 276).
Yes, I agree with philosopher Peter Singer. Committing murder is nothing less than allowing a fellow human being to die from hunger and starvation while you would have saved or aided him from the situation. Of course aiding a starving life comes with lots of inconveniences as well as sacrifices but as Philosopher Singer acknowledges, the rejection that you didn’t plan for someone to die while you were in a position to save is quite irrelevant. In fact when a person has no enough resources to enable him survive with dignity, those with more or rather plenty or those in stable position should legally and morally come to their
I will use the consequentialism point of view to justify that the two cases have similar intentions and final results, however a different approach in execution. In other words, the intention of the person doing the action and making the choice is to push the fat man on the rails to stop the trolley or pull the switch and direct it to a different path. In both cases there is a choice to save five lives or one, and in both cases you are the deciding factor of the potential outcome. Judith Thomson in her work dedicated to the trolley problem states that “If a person is faced with a choice between doing something here and now to five, by the doing of which he will kill them, and doing something else here and now to one, by the doing of which he will kill only the one, then (other things being equal) he ought to choose the second alternative rather than the first.” I consider that most people would follow that
Dr. James Rachels, in his article “Active and Passive Euthanasia” criticizes the AMA because he believes that passive euthanasia is just as worse as active euthanasia so you should either be for both or against both. His first argument against the AMA’s statement is that if the reason to end someone’s life is to put them out of their pain because there are not any further treatments to alleviate the pain then obviously it would be best to use the method that would end their life the fastest without causing pain. Thus, active euthanasia like a lethal injection would satisfy this reasoning much better than a passive euthanasia method such as a patient refusing treatment and suffering until they die. If you support passive euthanasia for this justification then according to this argument it would not make sense if you do not also support active euthanasia. His second argument is that he believes the AMA’s statement shows that choices in life and death situations are determined with inapplicable points.
However, on the other track is one person unable to move and trapped. This scenario can have two outcomes. You either pull the lever and sacrifice one person for the greater good of the greatest amount of people, or you leave it alone and let the train kill the five people. These two conflicting ideas, based on utilitarianism and deontological ethics, cause a moral dilemma worthy of contemplation. (Robinson).
Another instance in which ‘you get what you give’ is experienced is when Heck Tate covers up Bob Ewell’s murder to protect Boo from the public eye. Mr. Tate was wise enough to know the punishment for killing innocent people, as experienced from Bob Ewell and Tom Robinson. Heck saw first hand what happened and how it ends for Mr. Ewell. Secondly, it was again karma for Bob as his murder was merely shown as ‘clumsy drunk Ewell fell on his kitchen knife and died’ no one would know the truth about his murder and even in his death no one would have sympathy for him or try and stand up for him. Even in death Bob Ewell’s fate got to him, he will soon be forgotten and any memory people have of him will be the rude drunk of Maycomb, as he was.
Also, when the church caught on fire Johnny took the chance and saved kids who were trapped. In some ways Johnny isn’t a hero because when he killed Bob he knew the police would be after for him, and instead of turning himself in he runs away. This is wrong when Johnny thinks about what he has done he changed his mind and wanted to turn himself in. Above all, Johnny is the most heroic character in “The Outsiders.”
Victor also allows Justine to die for the murder of his younger brother because he’s afraid of what people will think. “My tale was not one to announce publicly; it’s astounding horror would be looked upon as madness by the vulgar”(83). He’s more concerned with what will happen to him, someone who actually had something to do with William’s death, than to Justine, who is completely innocent. Lastly, the monster says he will leave Victor and his family alone if Victor makes him a female companion, but he can’t even do that. “I thought with a sensation of madness on my promise of creating another like to him, and trembling with passion, tore to pieces the thing on which I was engaged”(180).
Hamlet delays in killing Claudius not only because he 's suffering from an Oedipal complex but also because his basic sanity keeps him from killing Claudius. In society we are taught that those who commit murder are sick or insane and will go to hell. However, Hamlet 's society believes the son of a murdered noble is responsible for avenging his father. And if the son does not abide to this law he himself deserves to die.
A Utilitarian would argue that you should kill the innocent villager because even though you’re killing him you are saving five others who are innocent. In the end, it is better to save five people and kill one than to get five people killed. On the contrary, a deontologist would argue that it is wrong to kill anyone, and that killing one person who is innocent is equally as bad as letting the others get killed. This point of view would allow the killing to be done by the Nazi’s and not someone else, so that person would not have to worry about their morals being affected. In this case I would agree with the Utilitarian’s stance because everyone who has the potential of being killed in this scenario is innocent and it is better to save the