He only presents one premise, that laws facilitate the segregation between smokers and nonsmokers, and consequently allow organized crimes harassing smokers to occur. The grounds for his premises are weak, as he does not provide concrete and reliable information to support his cause. Scott’s basic premise is that laws encourage the violation of smokers’ rights. He begins his argument with, “The Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and a host of anti-discrimination laws notwithstanding...” With that commencement, Scott proves that he does not understand the concept of discrimination. He continues by claiming that denying housing and employment for smokers is a form of public hostility.
Although Sullivan feels that this definition is not the final definition of hate, but it serves to better define the word and helps understand the true meaning behind the word. Sullivan has more of a problem with hate crimes than he does with the word hate. He feels that hate serves as a “blanket” since it does not refer to the acts of an individual but it serves to make it refer to a general group of people instead (Sullivan 315). He provides the interesting insight that any “sense of belonging is followed by an unequal sense of unbelonging” (Sullivan 309). This seems to be a direct result of our strange tendency to classify people, objects, and even ourselves.
The Torah suggests the death of a murderer. Killing a murderer does not bring any answers that make us understand what the reasons of the murderer were. Nietzsche says that we should follow our own instincts. In this case, it would be difficult to use his suggestion because neither the murderer, nor I would know if what we are doing is right or not. Even when Nietzsche suggest more freedom to make decisions, it is easier to follow the morals already created.
Simpler questions would be “Is Dr. Smith’s intentional practise of omitting important information relevant to his client’s treatment ethical?” or “Is Dr. Smith’s failure to report his client’s actions to the authorities morally justifiable?” Both would be good questions, but I believe the question the study guide asks us to consider embrace both of these questions. The possible answers to the question are “yes” or “no”. I will be using rule-based utilitarianism and Kantian deontology to analyse this case study. There is not enough information to consider act-based utilitarianism: Act-based utilitarianism essentially says that one should perform that act which will bring about the greatest amount of good (“happiness”) over bad for everyone affected by the act. Each situation and each person must be assessed on their own merits (Thiroux, 2004, p. 42).
(Yalom 1980) Existential therapy operates on the belief that inner conflict within a person is due to that individual's perception and fear of the very process of existing and of the inevitability of death . The existential therapist will not attempt to provide answers to clients but rather to allow them to accept the way things are, It is about accepting all given situations, good or bad, for what they are and just letting it be. It does not suggest change, but aims to allow the client to accept what is. Cognitive behavioural therapy or CBT is a psychotherapeutic approach that aims to solve problems concerning negative emotions and behaviours through a goal-focused, systematic procedures, tasks and discussions. It is about change.
Allowing a human life to intentionally be ended disregards the sacredness of human life and has no direct difference to murder despite the intentions to prevent pain. Furthermore, euthanasia would become the first step of a slippery slope whereby value of human life will be depreciated and reduced to economical and personal convenience. However, these farfetched consequences cannot surpass the empathetic argument of mercy on the patient whereby quality of life overrides quantity. The most convincing argument that renders the killing of terminally ill morally permissible is the understanding that all humans possess autonomy. John Stuart Mill argues in (On Liberty (1859), ‘The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which a citizen is amenable to society, is that which concerns others.
However, Curley threatens “(he’s) going to shoot the bastard (himself) even if (he’s) only got one hand. (He’s) gonna get ‘im.” Although Curley’s threat seems to put Lennie in imminent danger, these are only words. There was nothing to say that Curley would have definitely killed him, he may have only tortured him. George saved Lennie from a potential death. In addition to Curley though, George’s action can be seen as an act of justice as he kept others out of harm’s way from Lennie’s inexcusable but accidental strength.
This essay will explain and analyze two essays by individuals who express entirely different opinions of civil disobedience. In his essay, “Civil Disobedience: Destroyer of Democracy”, Lewis H. Van Dusen strongly discourages the use of civil disobedience as a means for change. He feels that this act of disobedience directly contradicts our democratic system. The other individual being compared in this essay is Henry David Thoreau; who in his essay, “Civil Disobedience”, supports the act of peacefully challenging or protesting unjust laws. He impugns us to do what is morally right, and to not be afraid to take a stand against injustice.
This particular highlight of the case initiates something Smith and I finally disagree on. Continuing on the account of George Zimmerman, Smith goes on to say that “I personally do not agree with the statement of Zimmerman. Look at size and make up. Was a deadly force justified, was the situation a danger to him or any other citizen based on logic? And as far as Zimmerman claiming the Stand Your Ground law, does that mean someone should die at every quarrel because they have the right to ‘stand their ground?” Smith makes another valid point with his last statement.
Another example of a danger of naivete and an uninformed population is not following orders given to you and allowing yourself to become a target and in danger of being murdered. For example, Merlin van tornhout avoided poisoning the Sutter’s well. “When I couldn’t put the poison in the sutter’s well, I went to Harvey. He said they’d come after me, the klan would. I don’t have any choice but to run” (121).