Criminals who did genuine crimes should bite the dust and not stay in prison. A few individuals say that slaughtering in any structure is totally off-base. A few individuals concur that murdering isn't right; nonetheless, if one individual kills another, capital punishment is the thing that they merit. To give a criminal the death penalty would console the individuals near the victim it would not happen once more. Likewise it gives them the inclination that the death has been vindicated.
Mencken states that this is another point that is uncertain and can be argued. Those who are for capital punishment assume that the only reason capital punishment is wanted is to deter crime. This is in fact, not true. It is obviously one of the aims of punishment but not the only one. “They believe that we simply hang or electrocute A in order to alarm B so he will not kill C” (Mencken 145).
The role of our conscience is also a reason a follower of a religious ethic would use to support their objection. Firstly, Natural Law is a deontological theory and does not look at the individual needs or situation; it considers the act of euthanasia or ‘the act of killing’ itself. The preservation and protection of life is a primary precept and should absolutely be followed. Euthanasia goes against this. A follower of Natural Law would object to euthanasia, chiefly for this reason.
Gwen Lawless English Composition 30 June 2011 The true price of the death penalty In choosing to support or disapprove of the death penalty, should the price we consider be one of moral cost or financial cost? In her essay “Executions are too costly- Morally,” Helen Prejean argues that the price paid for the death penalty is a moral one and even Christians who should be like Christ- ability to speak with power and authority without destroying a person’s soul or spirit- have instead taken on the role of the wicked now believing in violence and the death penalty. She argues that often the scripture is used to back up their beliefs and their support of the death penalty, without consideration to the culture and era or period of the Hebrew bible or the true context of the scripture being clear. She blames the change in Christians on the greed of Christian bishops in the early church, who desired wealth and power and as a result became much like the wicked in desiring to punish people by killing them; but points out that Martin Luther King and Mohandas Gandhi were perfect examples of nonviolence. They had the ability to, “make the price of maintaining control too high for their opponents”, by not seeking civil disobedience in order to allow the world to see the racism, but instead choosing to not seek to control another, but to control themselves and their own actions (Prejean, 623-627).
Soul-building evils are meant to force human beings to live through adversity and in turn strengthen our characters (Sober, pg. 111). Another criticism that exists to this second premise is called defense, which attempts to explain how evil can exist logically, given the existence of God (an all-PKG God) (“The Problem of Evil”). However, defense does not presuppose the existence of God or the existence of evil. If God and evil can
Mill believed it was extremely important that an indivduals free will should not be crushed by society. Mill believed indivduality is what it is to be human and anything that takes away your indivuduality is wrong. Mill state in his book On Liberty “Whatever crushes indivduality is despotism.” Despostism is the idea of dictatorship so Mill is saying that anything that stops our indivduality for example religion is controlling us and not allowing us to be free, which is wrong. Althought we are free we must consider others, this means that we can use our freedom however we must make sure we are not spoiling the freedom of others. This is supported by Paul Kurtz who states humans have the right “to satisfy their tastes” but however they shold not “impose their values on others.” For example you may want to murder someone with your free will however if you go ahead and commit the crime you are negatively effecting others in society and this is wrong.
Abolitionists disagree, stating the punishment is too harsh to serve justice, and it will not deter the committing of heinous crimes. The scriptures of the world's major religions seem to agree with, "an eye for an eye," advocates while at the same time concurring with abolitionists that, the death penalty--no matter the circumstances--is an immoral punishment. From these opposing views, we must conclude that scriptures were written by human beings, some accepting, others rejecting capital punishment. Therefore, it isn't possible to go to religious writings to find an answer acceptable to everyone. In searching for solutions, however, we should look at the Oklahoma City bomber's (Timothy McVeigh)
Can one be moral and not believe in God? Have you ever judged or been judged unfairly? How about thinking someone’s a bad person because they don’t believe in God? In the world today we are beginning to see an ethical system being built based on tolerance and enlightenment; apart from God. A person undoubtedly can ne moral without believing in God.
But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil." (Romans 13:4) Christians may believe that God has given governments the power of life and death of its citizens and its duty to protect them from evil by wielding the same ‘sword’ in war. It also says ‘...it does not bear the sword for nothing’ this could also help support the idea of just wars because it shows governments should have a reason for going to war, and the reason is to fight against evil, an example of this would be Adolf Hitler. Some will argue that God has commanded, ‘Thou shall not kill.’ Therefore Christians may believe they cannot fight in wars because fighting in wars involves killing, and this would be going against this commandment and if
Whereas relative is has loads of expectations and depends on the ethics of the situation. Absolute morality tends to be more religion orientated. In the Ten Commandments, there is one saying ‘Thou shalt not kill’ meaning ‘murder is not allowed.” Christians won’t question these rules, as they are from God. This is an absolutist rule. Someone who doesn’t follow a religion may tend to be more of a relativist, and they may say “Murder should be prevented, unless murdering one could stop the murder of more.” Using Kant’s famous example, if a murderer with an axe came to your house asking the whereabouts of your children, you’d have to tell him so that you are being moral as the murderer is his own moral agent and you are not responsible for his choices, you are only responsible for your own and it’ll be wrong to lie, even if it is to protect your loved ones.