Augustine defends the god of theism by rejecting the existence of evil as a force or power opposed to god as it would reject the premise that god is omnipotent. Below are the ways in which he justifies moral and natural evil, which respectively mean evil caused by human acts, and evil events caused by the processes of nature. To justify evil, he solves the problem by defining evil as a ‘privation’ – which means when something is ‘evil’, it is not defined to contain bad qualities but is seen to be falling short of perfection, or what it is expected to be. Take a rapist as an example. Adopting Augustine’s idea of ‘evil’, we are to say that he is not living up to standards expected of human beings.
The Real Effects of Torture “If we are unwilling to torture, we should be willing to wage modern war.”(Harris). This quote is from the article “In Defense of Torture” where author Sam Harris makes a stance stating that torture should be legal. Throughout this article Harris makes comparisons between the lives of innocent people and the lives of terrorists and other war criminals. His main point of argument is that dropping a bomb on a foreign country creates collateral damage killing some innocent people along the way, and that collateral damage is more detrimental to a foreign country than torturing people for information. Harris provides a good point of argument with these examples, however, this argument is flawed.
According to King, it is impractical because it slows the process of ending the oppression for all, and it is immoral because it seeks humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding. So, violence destroys community and brotherhood by planting hatred rather than love. The third way based on King is nonviolent resistance. He believes in this way no individual or group need give in to any wrong, nor need anyone resort to violence in order to right a wrong. According to king, this is the method that oppressed people must follow to win against the unjust system while loving the perpetrators of the system.
Susan Muller English 201 27Sept. 2013 Summary of Krauthammer’s Essay “The Truth about Torture” In the essay “The Truth about Torture” by Charles Krauthammer, he argues that the torture of suspected terrorist is permissible under certain circumstances and proposes limited legalization. This position is in opposition to the McCain amendment and other believers of the ‘no torture ever’ policy. Krauthammer believes that in situations where torture tactics may be helpful in obtaining pertinent lifesaving information that it should then be a legal option, as opposed to an executive decision to break the law as an extreme exception. With it being a legal option, the principle has then been established and that the “real argument should be over what constitutes a legitimate exception.” According to Krauthammer, the dialogue politicians should be having is how to define and codify torture practices.
To the argument that torture should be allowed in difficult and risky circumstances so as to protect against an inevitable attack: there is no evidence that torture will provide good solid information. Captives are just as inclined to give false information to stop the torture, as they are to tell what they know. To the argument that a national policy of torture should be allowed because our enemy will torture American prisoners: it is apparent from the testimonies and reports from the field combatants on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, that a policy of torture only serves to anger our enemies and to motivate others to bear arms against United States forces everywhere. None of the arguments for torture is morally justified. The moral high ground is owned by those who do not believe that it is proper for the government of a civilized nation to embrace torture as a means of gathering information from captured enemy combatants.
Moreover, in regard to bombing, a chief concern of System of a Down’s moral commentary on violence, Ramsey asserts that “we do not need to know who and where the noncombatants are in order to know know that indiscriminate bombing exceeds the moral limits of warfare that can ever barely be justified” (144). However, while Ramsey’s delineations of war’s ethical boundaries are valuable, the band would ultimately consider them insufficient, because the question Ramsey seeks to answer, “How shall modern war be conducted justly?” is incongruous with the band’s moral epistemology. Modern warfare is an innately unjust phenomenon that
“The Case for Torture”, by Michael Levin and “Torture’s Terrible Toll”, by John McCain are two pieces of writing that argue the pros and cons of using torture as a means to receive information from terrorists. Although the use of torture to secure information is viewed differently by each author, the moral and human rights of every individual is agreed upon by both Levin and McCain. While Levin views torture as necessary in extreme life threatening circumstances, McCain views it as unconstitutional and believes that it is inhumane and goes against individual human rights. In the world today, where terrorist threats seem to be a normal occurrence, there is no doubt that the country must be ready and willing to do whatever is necessary to keep
In the article titled “The Folly of Capital Punishment”, Jeffrey Reinam concludes that capital punishment is immoral to our society; and thus, should not be legalized. Reinam reasons the death penalty is unjust, inhuman, and goes against the progress of civilization. Reinam’s primary argument and rebuttal to Ernest Van Den Haags deterrence argument, is that the death penalty goes against the advancement of civilization. Reinam explains that throughout history we take steps to "lower tolerance for one's own pain and that suffered by others". Due to the states high visibility, size, and moral authority, it is capable to have an impact on citizens beyond the immediate act it authorizes.
Either way, it is against the law. What is the difference between racial profiling and hate crimes? Hate crimes are a crime against a person, whereas racial profiling is practiced in some law enforcements, and is not considered illegal. I personally believe that racial profiling is a violation of our human rights and freedoms, which everyone is entitled to. What racial profiling does is not protect us, but I believe it endangers us more.
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.