It is an irrefutable fact that we should help each. However sometimes help to others poses some danger to either us or others. Thus Peter Singer’s argument that, “we ought to prevent evil whenever we can do so without sacrificing something of comparable moral significance” in my view is a better school of thought or a sound moral law. We shall find out how he arrives at this conclusion and how convincing he is. Singer begins his argument by outlining some very important facts about human beings.
Most agree that gun-related injury or death of innocent citizens should never be tolerated, but there are opinions on the course to take in an effort to discover a solution. This paper will offer problems and solutions associated with past and present efforts to manage the issue of gun-related injuries/death. This paper will also render the discoveries and opinions of the above-mentioned group members as it relates to this controversial topic. Stricter gun-control laws do not help prevent gun-related injuries/deaths One method to prevent gun-related injuries/deaths is to make serious efforts to treat depression, mental health issues, and drug abuse in society. A large number of gun-related injuries/deaths are committed by members of society that have untreated disorders and others that simply neglect firearm safety rules and existing gun-control laws.
Critical Analysis on “The Missing Piece to the Gang-Violence Debate.” Dan Gardner’s publish, “The Missing Piece to the Gang-Violence Debate”, is strongly controversial in his position against increasing enforcement of drug laws, and boosting penalties for violators. He believes that you should actually limit enforcement and hardship of sentencing when it comes to drugs. Was his argument persuasive enough in the essay to actually influence his wishes into society? Personally, I don’t think so. Gardner’s ideas are too drastic and I believe he didn’t have enough support in his argument that his plans would actually decrease the murders in gang violence.
The reason for this is that not all states can agree on whether or not capital punishment is criminal in and of itself. Another important controversy within the subject is this: Regardless of whether or not the death penalty itself should be enforced, if it is going to be, then is it right to publicize the criminal’s execution, or should it remain private? The subject of privatized versus publicized executions is still a hot debate for most. Those who are in support of public executions have valid reasons, as do those who are against them. Both sides have been pretty stubborn in their views, the reason why we haven’t reached a decision as a whole.
Student Professor English 305 6 November 2009 I Say No To Hate Crime Laws Hate crimes are an irrational, ignorant and cowardly expression of desperation. A person who commits a hate crime is desperate to feel better, superior and in control. That being said, there should not be special laws and mandatory sentences for people who commit these heinous acts of violence because they do not accomplish the goals of eradicating or deterring bigotry. If we, as a society, put special laws and punishments into our legal system, we are unequivocally saying that the motive of these acts is more important than the intent or outcome of these crimes. I do not believe this is true nor do I feel that this is the position of the majority of people in
A person cannot do “whatever they like” because in many cases that would include things that are actually not beneficial to them. (Doing drugs might be an example. It might seem satisfactory at the moment, but ultimately, it damages their body.) A person must only do what seems to be in their best interest. Under moral egoism, no moral duty exists to anyone other than self.
Similarly, both render the victim defenseless. After being tortured, possibilities suggest that a normal life can happen. Therefore, putting someone through suffering is not very smart. When people are in pain, they will say anything and everything to get out of that situation. So, the information received is not always reliable.
If we can slowly move our way to lung cancer, heart disease and gum disease (just to name a few). Why not be able to buy alcohol. Raising the drinking age was meant to save lives. What about all the lives that could potentially be saved by raising the legal age to smoke to 21? If we can make that choice we should be able to kill our liver at the same time.
Diana Penuela Professor Leano English 1A 10 March , 2011 Capital Punishment Currently in California the death penalty is allowed. Capital punishment lowers the value of human life and it is based on a need of revenge. It also sends the wrong message to our kids and society by asserting that violence is the only way out. Teaching that killing is wrong by killing creates a culture of violence because it is only based on getting back at the prisoner by using violence. Capital punishment does not deter crime; instead it increases the murder rate and there is a chance of error.
For example a man has the choice to shoot one person and save thousands or walk away and let thousands die. An Act utilitarian would believe shooting that one person is the right thing to do, as it bring happiness to thousands rather than one. What about the minority? Some people believe that Act utilitarianism is not right in all cases, for example the holocaust, if the majority finds it pleasurable to hurt them then according to this theory it is morally right. This Is a strong argument however, we cannot please everyone, so surely it makes more sense to bring happiness to as many people as possible.