And were they justifiable at all? In my opinion George’s actions at the end of the novel of killing Lennie were justifiable because even though it was a hard decision between the three choices he could have made, he weighted all his options and did what he thought was the best option for him and the most humane for Lennie. So the main question we ask is why did he kill Lennie and was it justifiable? The thing is George would not have been able to live with himself if he didn’t kill Lennie himself. George also did everything he could to kill Lennie in the most humane way possible.
The chief complaint as stated by the patient was “I think I messed up with my behavior in the neighborhood and the police brought me here.” He had a flat affect, poor judgment, impulse control, concentration, attention span, and was also lacking insight, but he was cooperative and coherent. T.B is single, he used to work as a driver, but has been unemployed for five to six years, although he does have an associate’s degree. He has no medical history or history of drug, alcohol, or smoking, and no criminal history. T.B has no allergies, no access to a firearm, but he has had previous suicidal attempts in the past and was hospitalized for them. T.B has a mother, father, two brothers, and one sister, there is rarely any contact between them.
Based on the Best Bet theory we can assume that the risk of losing one’s own life and any potential to ever see freedom again is just as good of a punishment as any other. If not using capital punishment reduces how many are deterred and does not reduce the number of innocent lives taken we too are responsible for the loss of those lives. We are responsible not only for our own direct actions but also for our inaction and the consequences of it. Objections to the death Penalty: Objection 1: “Capital punishment is a morally unacceptable thirst for revenge.” Revenge is a personal response, done out of anger and hatred, which inflicts harm to the perpetrator. Retributivism is an unbiased and impartial response to a perpetrator that has wronged another.
Moonshine was a common type of alcohol that people could get hold of easily, and was made using homemade stills. However this turned out to be very dangerous and even poisonous. 5000 people died from drinking moonshine every year. Other alcohol was smuggled in from other places such as Mexico or Canada. Another effect of prohibition was a great surge in Gangsters, who uses the illegality of alcohol to their advantage by selling massive amounts of it.
According to Robert Solomon, “Good Ethics is Good Business” and “unethical conduct hurts business as a whole”. I agree with his point of view because in the business world, we have witnessed big companies fail and fall down due to their unethical practice. I also agree that being aware of the 3C’s, which are Compliance, Contributions, and Consequences, is the best tool to define Good Ethics in Business. Solomon used Break Breaker Inc. case to prove that unethical business strategy will lead to the quick failure of business. Break Breaker Inc. to some extent obey with some legal rules, but failed to comply with principles of morality and community, contribute to the society by producing honest high quality services, and account the consequence of damaging their reputation.
He goes to say, “At length I would be avenged; this was a point definitely settle – but the very definitiveness with which it was resolved precluded the idea of risk” (727). Although Montresor is vengeful he doesn’t want to lose anything in the act. For example, he says, “I must not only punish, but punish with impunity (727). A big part of the story is made up of Montresor’s vengeance of Fortunato, avoiding impunity, and successfully killing Fortunato. The second characteristic that describes the narrator is that he is observant.
There is a moral difference between Shelton’s killing of his attackers and that of his other victims. Darby and Ames caused personal harm to Shelton and thus gave him the moral right to try and prevent any other future pain that could be caused by these men, but the other victims were combatants in the war that Shelton waged against the “system”. When looking at Darby and Ames, Shelton takes a more utilitarian approach when dealing with their killings. The government “system” is supposed to punish those who are wrong. But in the trial of Darby and Ames, only Ames was punished severely while Darby was allowed to go free.
You will work for a while, you will be caught, you will confess, and then you will die." (Orwell 176). Despite hearing these words Winston's uncharacteristic belief in Brotherhood shielded him from comprehending and he did not appear to be swayed in any way, shape, or form. The hope that O'Brien inspires is setting Winston and Julia up for a fall, thus being the most important
Not one of the researchers believed that testing and overserving the men was unethical. Because the participants did not know in reality what they were being tested for, this study was wrongfully executed. Finally, the study showcased influential power. The testes were offered small yet desirables things such as free checkups, therapy if necessary, and rides to the clinics. Being that the subjects were financially handicapped, they willingly agreed to be tested for “bad blood.” Overall, this study was wrong morally.
This led to Enron laying off thousands and shareholders losing billions (Ferrell et al., 2011). The Law of Respect Enron employees respected the company’s executives. Enron was a top company showing huge profits. In the end, however, we found that Enron’s executives abused this respect. The top executives were found guilty of crimes such as fraud and conspiracy.