Relativism Relativism The article of “Some Moral Minima” written by Lenn Goodman, discusses issues in our society he believes to be truly unethical and wrong. Some cultures believe the things mentioned by Goodman to be ethical and acceptable in their culture because it is they way they way have been doing things for many years. Some points discussed by Goodman are genocide, terrorism, and rape. The first example from Goodman is genocide, the murdering or extermination of an entire race or culture. Mass murder is compared to genocide and an example would be when nations or groups are at war with each other.
They have reasons and goals for killing that are obvious. With the people that I am talking about do not have goals that are reasonably noticable until after they are caught. These people are driven from within side them. They kill to what only appeals to them. Serial killers drive has been debated since people have started studying them, But there are a few commonalities in which they do agree upon.
In "Death and Justice: How Capital Punishment Affirms Life", readers view the opinions toward the death penalty in today's world. Koch reviews a variety of excuses to abolish the death penalty, and in his mind all of them should be disregarded. He argues the importance of the death penalty, as well as, argues excuses of the death penalty opponents. He argues the ethics and politics towards the importance and support of the death penalty. He tries to appeal to the readers’ emotion whenever he can.
This results in poor representation of convicted people in courts and unfair verdicts. Another issue associated with the penalty is that the value of life is lessened. Government should be concerned with the damage inflicted on society when a person is sentenced to be killed by juries. Being put to death by a people does not seem to be that different from a heinous murder committed by a murderer. With all of the media reporting executions like movies, societies become desensitized and accept death penalty as the right way to take care of criminals.
Criticisms on the existing law of murder has certainly not abated in recent times. Lord Hailsham had quoted. ‘Murder..although often described as one of the (crimes of) utmost heinousness, is not in fact necessarily so, but consists of a whole bundle of offences of vastly differing degrees of culpability, ranging from brutal, cynical and repeated offences like the so-called Moors murderers, to the almost venial, if objectively immoral, ‘mercy killing’ of a beloved partner’. The fundamental approach by the Law Commission to distinguish the difference between ‘first’ and ‘second’ degree murder has prompted questions on what exactly each classification of murder represents to the reform of the law of homicide. In December 2005, the Law Comission published a paper entitled A New Homicide
When a person murders someone else that murderer destroys the victim’s family’s lives. It has been shown all along the devastation caused by Madoff to his victims. You have to wonder where you draw the line. In this instance I believe you don’t. I think the judge made a smart decision about how the punishment should fit the crime. The severity of Ponzi scheme reflects the severity of the punishment.
On the other hand there are people that are for the death penalty. They are for the death penalty because they think that the people that have committed these crimes deserve to feel the horrible pain and fear that their victims felt. Some people believe that both side of the death penalty has valid arguments. It is up to each individual to make the decision as to where they stand. The two individuals that are on opposite sides of the death penalty are Edward Koch and David Bruck.
Robert Jones Dr. Wilson Maina Ethics in Contemporary Society 19 February 2013 In a sense, everyone has different perspectives on the euthanasia topic. “Euthanasia is killing someone for the sake of mercy to relieve great suffering.” (148). The question looms, to what extent is killing someone for the relief of great suffering extend to? Whether society is ever going to pick a side or agree both ways has to unrealistic. The discussion if this topic is ethical or unethical is debated upon.
Capital punishment is defined as the execution of a person by the state as punishment for a crime. It is said that capital punishment is inhumane as it involves the killing of people. It concerns a life created by God and raises the question on the value of life and human rights. That is why several countries have started to abolish the aforementioned rule and have used the life sentence for the same cases as that of capital punishment. Countries that still wish to use the death penalty use it for very severe crimes/offences and are likely to be less economically developed countries such that of Ethiopia, Nigeria and Malaysia.Compared to the previous times, the death penalty is now reserved as a punishment for severe crimes such as murder, espionage, treason, or as part of military justice.
In the third area, there is the personal source of morality. This is the area that has sparked controversy, as it is subject to many forms of interpretation and personal understandings. In Lenn Goodman’s work, we see an argument that states there are some things, which are certainly wrong. He confirms the existence of our four fundamental and universal things that fall under the category of wrong and unacceptable acts in a society moral-minima. The first, he explains is genocide that encompasses politically instigated famine and germ warfare.