Thus they argue that one of the causes of crime is merely one’s rational choice. Rational choice theorists like Ron Clarke highlight that individuals have free will and the power of reason which assists them in making choices. Therefore they make calculative decisions and if they feel that the rewards of committing a crime overshadow the risk, then they are likely to commit the crime. This suggests that humans are naturally selfish and so it means that we are provided with a negative vision of looking at crime. However, the idea that humans are naturally selfish seems to be radical.
• Situation ethics can even be a way to approve of what are considered in society as ‘evil’ acts. For example, killing or lying may in fact be right in situation ethics, if it leads to a sufficiently good result. Perhaps, lying to someone to ensure that no pain is caused is a good act? Or even killing a person in self-defence is acceptable. However, surely lying and killing in general are bad acts, so how can they be
Using Card’s definition, both events would be considered evils. I argue that this line of reasoning is confused. A person’s intention should play a role in whether or not her action is evil. In the first example, the driver does not intend to fall asleep at the wheel and as a result the action is merely bad (more specifically, driving while sleep deprived is bad: falling asleep is neither good nor bad). In the second example, the driver decides to murder the pedestrian: the action is evil.
According to Karl, people who commit crimes are helplessness and hopelessness. They are suffering psychological disorders or illnesses (Menninger, 533). If the society really wants to decrease the occurrence of crimes, it should reform the current punishment system and offer proper treatments to the anti-social agents, which is to replace punitive and vengeful attitude with a therapeutic attitude to them. Karl Menninger argues that the consequence of current punishment in society is inconsistent to the purpose of using it. He pointed out that “our system for controlling crime is ineffective, unjust, and expensive (Menninger, 531).
For example, he feels people who break the law should be punished accordingly and not necessarily be locked-up and behind bars. Another point presented by the author is how United States citizens have to rectify and acquit oneself in order to be punished and imprisoned for their wrongdoings. Kevin Carr feels that people should not be restrained and confined behind steel bars. Despite the previous arguments, another reason Kevin strongly feels that “criminals convicted of non-violet crimes” should not face jail terms is because it can leave a psychological affect on people who are not a threat or danger to others. In other words, offenders that find themselves incarcerated for a small case such as being a thief, a beggar, or being a violator for parking infractions should not be labeled and put in the same classification as people who are convicted of repulsive, despicable, and inhuman types of criminal violence.
Opponents argue against it saying it is inhumane, racially biased, and that it does not deter crime. This paper will argue support of the death penalty. The death penalty is a justified and unbiased punishment for murderers proven guilty of taking another innocent life and is a deterrent for murderous
I feel that torture is inhumane, and it should not be practiced as a punishment for a crime. However, if a terrorist has chosen to do something horrible where it puts innocent peoples’ lives in danger, then by all means the terrorist has lost all of his rights. In this situation torture should be used to get information as it could help prevent a future catastrophe rather than punishing for a past
But how can you say that something is 100% evil if evil itself can’t be fully defined and applied? On the other hand Augustine was wrong to presume that nothing was 100% evil because things that can be said to be 100% evil could be argued strongly that it has either good means or thought behind it and that even though it may be 100% evil. An example of this could be killing a child, many people would see this to be pure evil, but the person behind killing this child could say that they did it because the child had a disability that they had good intentions behind their action but the action itself was 100% evil. This shows that Augustine was wrong to try and say that nothing is 100% evil because even the most evil things could be said
For example, if Kantianism is being used, stealing would be considered a morally wrong action because it shouldn’t become a universal law, regardless of how many people benefit from the action. I choose to compare these two ethical theories because in my perspective they are polar opposites of each other. Utilitarianism is arguing, “ANY action is morally right if it creates the greatest amount of pleasure for the most amounts of people.” This includes murder, stealing, lying, etc. On the other hand, Kantianism is clearly stating some actions are always bad, no matter what could come out of those actions. During the Industrial Revolution is the time period that utilitarianism is known to have come into being (Shanahan and Wang 103).
Some of the reasons Crito gave Socrates so he would escape before his execution were: Crito will look bad as a friend if Socrates is put to death (44b). Practical matters are not a problem, shelter and resources will be provided (44e-45c). Putting Socrate in jail was a wrongful action so for Socrates to remain in prison is a wrongful action