Explain what is meant by moral absolutism Moral absolutism is the belief that certain actions are right or wrong, no matter what the situation. Moral absolutists might, for example, judge slavery, war, dictatorship, the death penalty, or childhood abuse to be absolutely and inarguably immoral regardless of the beliefs and goals of a culture that engages in these practices. They believe that actions are moral regardless of circumstance. Lying, for instance, would always be immoral, even if done to promote some other good (e.g. saving a life).
The U.S. struggled with each issue and did what they thought was right, even if damage was caused. I believe we should have involved ourselves with the war, and that it was right. Jews were being exterminated just because of their religious views. Hitler was going "berserk" during that time period and we should have taken action earlier. Italy had a roaring fascist society which could hurt democracy in the world.
Contemplating the Moral Permissibility of Torture This paper is an evaluation of a work by Henry Shue in which he writes about torture. Shue points out that while torture is a violation of most international law, it continues to be used extensively throughout the world and that its use may actually be on the rise. Governments are in effect “talking the talk” in their condemnation of torture but the reality is that they are not “walking the walk” as they institute the use of torture for various means of self preservation. Shue’s primary goal seems to be to show that torture is a special entity that is far worse than even death because it is an assault against the defenseless. Shue does not necessarily attempt to show that torture is never justified.
History indicates that moral concerns influenced warrior’s decisions to limit the potential damage of war. In addition, certain acts during warfare were considered honorable, while others were seen as dishonorable (e.g. the killing of innocent man, woman and child). However, what is viewed as honorable or dishonorable is specific to religion and culture (Moseley, 2009). This can be the case when referring to terrorist groups.
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
Luban raised two models; first is the war model, which supports the use of lethal force on enemy troops irrespective of whether they were personally involved with the adversary. Also, killing of non-combatants is allowed when collateral damage is foreseen even if unintended. The evidence and proof is drastically weaker and attacks on the enemy are done irrespective of what he/she has done. Disadvantages in war model are that fighting back is a legitimate response, and as some nations resolve on fighting others may
“Unsung Heroes” follows the same line of thought. It enumerates explicitly false heroes that are often found among former US presidents and military people. Zinn reminds us of the crimes each of them has committed. He suggests that these undue idols be taken off their pedestals and be replaced by real heroes, people who have sacrificed something to make a change, even if it was a small one. Being a war-opponent and social activist, Howard Zinn’s most likely intention in writing “Unsung Heroes” was to educate people about the mistakes (and deliberate lies) that are, in his opinion, very common in the perception of American history.
“Analyze Beccaria’s argument against the judicial torture within the framework of Enlightnment values, and explain if you find his position still relevant today.” Cesare Beccaria, an enlightenment era philosopher that argued against the many problems that were wrong with the judicial system. He argued against the judicial torture by using the enlightenment ideas, since torture it was a big concern in his time and that it was lacking fairness and usefulness. Beccaria’s fundamental faith that he truly believed in was that all human beings are rational creatures that can join each other in peace and harmony in order to achieve a mutual benefit. Since the enlightenment ideals consisted of a social contract that all made political authority a legitimate authority because of the individuals within the society who joined together for a mutual benefit. Meaning that the authority that was elected by the society had to be beneficial to the society; as well as the right and wrong actions depended on the effect that these actions had on the unhappiness and happiness of an individual.
Though everyone accepts that terrorism is a kind of crime, a heinous one at that, the very fact that a terrorist for one is a martyr for others has made the situation very puzzling. It is simple to tell between a crime and an act of terrorism on reason of guilt/innocence proceedings and sentencing procedures. An ordinary criminal, when he pleads guilty, is awarded a sentence in keeping with his crime and serves the sentence in prison. But terrorism works on the basis of an ideology, it is a belief that motivates someone or a group of individuals to engage in acts of violence as they believe that this is the only way to make their grievances heard or felt. Some links or similarities between ordinary crimes and the issue of terrorism are: 1.
With this quote, it could be that Bismarck is implying that speeches and majority decisions can never really change someone’s mind, or stop them from rebelling. It is clear that he believes that only war will really bring someone down and solve a lasting problem. What do you think? I agree with this quote to some extent, but in another way I disagree. I agree with the fact that war does usually resolve problems by making it clear what is wanted, and enforcing it physically.