Utilitarianism maintains that the surgeon do the act that produces the maximum overall amount of utility, namely, the surgeon must kill the one healthy patient to save the five others. Whilst our intuition and commonsense morality tells us that the surgeon is morally wrong in performing the organ transplants at the cost of an innocent life, Utilitarianism fails to acknowledge that such an act would be wrong on the basis that the surgeon would be violating the Hippocratic oath by inflicting harm as well as violating the healthy patient’s right to life, in order to bring about the greatest overall amount of happiness. In this example, which can be modified to counter utilitarian or consequentialist replies, it is clear that Utilitarianism provides the surgeon with the morally wrong answer as to which action he/she should perform and it is due to this that we are able to regard it as an unsuccessful moral theory. Utilitarianism can furthermore allow for what are typically regarded as immoral practices such as sadism. For the reason that a sadist could derive a great deal of
In “Of Mice and Men” by John Steinbeck, George made the right decision in shooting Lennie because Lennie did not know his own strength. Another reason is If George did not kill Lennie others would have killed him. However, the other side might argue that Lennie did not mean to kill Curley’s wife, thus he deserves to live. George should have killed Lennie because Lennie did not know his own strength, that is the reason why he killed many things by accident and caused many problems. “Why do you got to get killed?
Okcar was watching innocent people being taking two trains bound for certain death. That 's when Schindler’s protection of his Jewish workers became increasingly active. After you seen her riffic axe from Humanity Oskar Couldn 't do nothing go buy more Jews If he had the money. This drew his protection for the Jews he already saved because now and Nazis are packing the Jews in train and taking them to certain death. This is why Oskar Schindler exchangeable at first it was all just about the money go when he really saw the horrific acts from the Nazis he started to save the Jews he could and was protecting them.
When George realized this he killed Lennie peacefully before the ranchmen could hurt him.George was justified in killing Lennie because if he wouldn 't have Curly and the other ranch men would have made Lennie 's death very painful while George killed Lennie nice and peacefully without pain. In the book Of Mice and Men there is an example of euthanasia, when
Tim O’Brien wrote in the book on how accidents can happen in war. Accidents can take away a person's life in war. Just because it was an accident doesn’t effect on what happens. Sometimes when you ambush your enemies you might accidentally shoot your man, But just because that was an accident does mean that it will bring back your brother. “Billy Boy stepped on the mine, and how it made a tiny little sound-poof-and how Billy Boy Stood there with his mouth wide open, looking down at where his foot had been blown off” (202).
Max says that though Mary wanted to help, and for she was killed was Bigger’s fault, but killing Bigger will not bring Mary back and it will not undo Bigger’s wrong. The only way to make good out of Bigger’s crime is to spare his life, to stop murder and accusations that puts African Americans under the control of the white majority. Killing Bigger will accomplish nothing but vengeance and by sending Bigger to prison would be an act of mercy and courage, it means that mere vengeance is avoided and justice is still delivered to Mary and Bessie’s family and to the people of Chicago. A more powerful gesture is to keep Bigger alive because it means that the state wants Bigger to be rehabilitated, to fully understand the world and to learn from
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
Dr. Rachels on the other hand believes that letting them die can be as morally worse as killing them. He explains this through the use of an example known as the Smith and Jones case. In this scenario Smith and Jones want to receive an inheritance so they both set out to drown their cousin. Smith ends up drowning his cousin while Jones goes to drown his cousin but notices his cousin is already drowning in the tub so he decides to let him die. Both men had the same motive and willingness to kill the child, but the only difference was one killed while the other let them die.
Well let me ask you this Would want to live the rest of your life with guilt knowing a number of people died because you couldn’t torture someone for information? As Michael Levin said” If life is so valuable that it must never be taken, the lives of the innocents must be saved at even the price of hurting the one who endanger them”. Torturing someone is fine if it involves saving others People. My choice would be to inflict pain on one person then have 10 or thousands of people die because I couldn't torture to get information on a terrorist attack. So as you can see torture isn’t always used to harm someone, But used to help get out information on terrorism or a terrorist attack that could endanger people.
Even his family did not fight the punishment he was sentenced and said they would, “struggle as long as we live why he committed this horrible attack, which caused so much pain to so many good people” (Siegel). The only just punishment for Roof is death, as long as he is alive he will think he has done the right thing by killing those people. If the trial would have taken a turn where Roof was given to privilege to go back into society there would be no doubt he would execute the same crime, and potentially on a larger scale. Capital punishment saves other innocent lives from people such as Dylann Roof