Supporters of the death penalty argue that it is the only just punishment for a murderer. I believe that the death penalty should be ended because one’s life is not more precious than another, the process is inhumane, and it is expensive. One of the reasons the death penalty should be stopped is because it puts the value of one’s life over another. Others may claim that the death penalty is a way to punish murderers. Although murder is a horrific crime to commit, is death really the only just punishment?
In yielding the name “justice as fairness”, Rawls proposes the concept of “the original position” as the appropriate initial status quo which ensures that fundamental agreements reached in it are fair. This essay aims at examining Rawls’ original position as the central feature of his theory of justice. In examining this concept, the essay will expose the theory, assess how the original position supports justice as fairness, and analyze some criticisms leveled against the concept. The original position is the central feature of Rawls’ theory of justice as fairness. In the theory, the original position of equality corresponds to the state of nature in the traditional theory of the social contract (Feinberg 2005: 600).
Everyone would have the guaranteed rights of fundamental liberties. The difference principle gives unequal distributions as long as they benefit the worst off (Selections from John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, Reprinted in: Manuel Velasquez, Ethics: Theory and Practice (Englewood Cliffs, N. P.139). Rawls says that for the first principle, basic liberties are important because of moral powers. He says that people need a sense of reasonable justice that can amount to agreements and they need to be able to pursue what is good. He says that for the second principle, inequalities can be permitted if everyone is better off.
Deterrence is an act or process of discouraging and preventing an action from occurring. When potential killers know that the cost of their murderous action can result in their own death, they are much more hesitant and more likely to reconsider their plans. Murderers are selfish and sick-minded people who have no consideration of others. Isaac Ehrlich puts it perfectly, “ if one execution of a guilty capital murderer deters the murder of one innocent life, the execution is justified.” Therefore, capital punishment should be strictly enforced and legalized.Capital punishment also provides protection to the society. Philosopher Jackues Barzun compares such criminals to wolves.
Effect Cause What are the moral lessons revealed? Describe the divine intervention involved. Title of Story: Protagonist ______________________ Antagonists _________________________ Describe the confict. . .
By comparing an act to the categorical imperatives you can determine if the act is morally right. The three categorical imperatives in short are: Can the act be universalised, treat people as an end in them-selves not as a means to an end, and could the act be made a law. For example killing someone in cold blood is wrong because: if it was universalised everyone would be dead; if the act of killing someone was made law there would be widespread chaos. This can also be illustrated on a smaller level such as lying. The categorical imperatives fit in with Kant’s theory as it sets a sort of benchmark to base your actions upon.
It seems that only focusing on the final outcome may lead to morally wrong actions. Because of this, the intent of actions, regardless of how things may turn out, seems as if it should be a strong indicator of the morality of an action. A highly discussed topic in ethics is the debate between killing and letting die. Under almost all circumstances and moral theories, murder is considered wrong, while letting die necessarily isn’t. But why is this the case? If there is an action that can prevent a life from being saved but one chooses not to act on it, this seems like a type of murder.
He was tracked down and shot. Some say the police did the shooting, others say it was suicide. Either way Booth died, along with any explanations or answers. It was the worst move possible to have made for the south. They believe that they could change things, yet this effect of war killed off the south’s only sympathizer.
1.) If anyone ensnare another, putting a ban upon him, but if he cannot prove it, then he that ensnared him shall be put to death. My interpretation of this law is that if you detain someone for a crime but can't prove it, you receive the punishment. Which in this case the punishment would be death. I believe this law would be considered to harsh for this day and age.
In order to be sentenced to the death penalty, a man must commit a severe crime; for example, murder. If a man were to murder another, the rational thing to do would be to take his life away by sentencing them to death. The argument about it being “humane” counterbalances itself. First of all, committing murder is in no way humane, so why should the punishment of the killer be any different? Why should their life be sparred if what they did was completely and utterly inhumane?