Can Movies Kill The ability to identify logical fallacies in the arguments of others and to avoid them in our own arguments is valuable and rare. Some logical fallacies are more common than others. The fallacies Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, Hasty Generalization, and Causal Oversimplification are all errors of reasoning. In the article Natural Born Killers by John Grisham, Sarah Edmondson and her boyfriend Benjamin Darras commit a murder and severely injure another. The two want to say they did such horrible things because of a movie they had seen, Natural Born Killers.
This theory basically states that someone violates the law based on any number of reasons to include greed, need, lust, anger, jealousy, and vanity. This theory was formed in a time period when the fear of satanic possession was dominant. Cruel methods of punishment were used to deal with crime doing this time, Classic Criminology was developed with the thought process that people do things that bring them pleasure and help them to avoid pain. The purpose of punishment based on this theory was to prevent criminal offenses altogether, persuade the criminal to commit lesser offenses if it was going to happen, to persuade the criminal to use the least amount of force necessary, and for the criminal to commit as cheap of a crime as possible. The basic elements of this theory are that people have free will, crime is attractive due to the possible big pay off, crime can be deterred if the punishment is worse than the crime, and that the punishment must be severe and swift enough to convince criminals that crime does not pay.
Although murder is a horrific crime to commit, is death really the only just punishment? No, death is only the punishment the world has chosen for murderers. What is the difference between a murderer taking a life and a state taking a life? There is no difference because in a sense, they are both murderers. Capital punishment supports the death of one individual, the murderer, over the death of another, the victim.
Against Feldman’s Argument Kevin Dong Word Count: 1400 In Feldman’s Epicurus and the Evil of Death, the author rejects Epicurus’ argument that one should not fear death. He claimed that a painful sensation was not the only requirement for something to be considered bad. Not being better off than one could have can also be considered bad. The purpose of my paper is to show that Feldman’s definition of what is bad fails. I will first present Epicurus’ argument and Feldman’s counter argument and explain the latter.
It seems that only focusing on the final outcome may lead to morally wrong actions. Because of this, the intent of actions, regardless of how things may turn out, seems as if it should be a strong indicator of the morality of an action. A highly discussed topic in ethics is the debate between killing and letting die. Under almost all circumstances and moral theories, murder is considered wrong, while letting die necessarily isn’t. But why is this the case? If there is an action that can prevent a life from being saved but one chooses not to act on it, this seems like a type of murder.
V saved Evey and was explaining her how he could have killed those fingerman. V also seems to be a very rancorous person and is trying to transmit this to Evey to make her understand that violence is not just about killing, but is a justice punishment for wrongdoing. V’s behavior is pretty much making Evey loose innocence and realize how unjust the world can be. Sometimes you have to get hurt for the second or even third time to realize that you are just an innocent person who has to start changing your point of view. Evey is one of these people.
I can agree with him on the fact that murder is wrong, but at the sometime there must be some type of line drown to determine whether this act is committed on behalf of wants, needs, or desire. There are many different facts of murder, all having the same end state of death. Some commit this act of violence on the cause of jealousy or envy which speaks on that individual’s character. Sometimes murder may be committed in acts of self-defense, in these cases I would say that this violent act would possibly be excusable due to the constraints of the situation (either he dies or I die). In this term it is a matter of survival going to mere basics of humanity.
Similarly, direct action by a person who has no special authority is not properly called punishment, and is more likely to be revenge or an act of hostility.” http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/5144_Banks_II_Proof_Chapter_5.pdf When using a theoretical approach to the question of why we punish criminals, the same source raises the issues of: • They deserve to be punished. • Punishment will stop them from committing further crimes. • Punishment tells the victim that society disapproves of the harm that he or she has suffered. • Punishment discourages others from doing the same thing. • Punishment protects society from dangerous or dishonest people.
Deterrence is an act or process of discouraging and preventing an action from occurring. When potential killers know that the cost of their murderous action can result in their own death, they are much more hesitant and more likely to reconsider their plans. Murderers are selfish and sick-minded people who have no consideration of others. Isaac Ehrlich puts it perfectly, “ if one execution of a guilty capital murderer deters the murder of one innocent life, the execution is justified.” Therefore, capital punishment should be strictly enforced and legalized.Capital punishment also provides protection to the society. Philosopher Jackues Barzun compares such criminals to wolves.
First of all killing morally is a way of killing ones moral beliefs. Morality is derived from the Latin word “moralitas” meaning manner, personality, and behavioral ethics. It is the ability to make choices between the good and the bad. In today’s society, teenagers kill morally by guiding people to the wrong path, sometimes even forcing others to do something which is against their intentions or principles. For example, compelling someone to smoke, drink or doing an action against their will is eventually going to harm them in some way or another, either physically or emotionally.