This seems to say that “Compassion” would help me to understand why the reasons of the murder to kill. I don’t have to accept these reasons, but it would give me understanding to make a reasonable decision on the murderer’s future. If I use the word compassion, people could believe that the feelings I have for the person killed are weak, they would not justify why I feel that compassion; however, the way I interpret the word is only to understand the reasons the murderer has to kill that person related to me. If I only use the feelings I have for the person close to me, I would be anticipating a decision that could be wrong. I need to have understanding of the reasons the murderer has to kill someone close to me.
According to Nagel, there is a paradox in moral responsibility caused by two concept: moral luck and the Control Principle. Moral luck designates blame on someone for actions outside of their control. The Control Principle, on the other hand, is the belief that blame should only be designated on someone for actions within their control. These two ideas are in direct contradiction of one another and it would be foolish to believe both. However, Nagel argues that we cannot plausibly reject either of them.
Their condition might take an unexpected turn; or they might change their mind about a treatment; or a treatment might have disappointing effects. In these and similar cases, withdrawal of a treatment after trying it will be acceptable legally and ethically. If the team believes that a treatment could do some good, it would be unacceptable not to commence it on the basis of a false fear that it would not be possible to stop the treatment. Special legal procedures are associated with decisions relating to patients in a persistent vegetative state (BMA 2007). Intention Charges of murder and voluntary manslaughter require an intention to kill or harm on the part of the accused.
The Homicide Act 1957 has been criticised mainly under these following premises. The Mandatory life sentence for committing murder has been criticised for being too rigid in the cases of mercy killing, for example, a man may have helped to kill his terminally ill wife because she begged him to put an end to her pain. The court may feel considerable sympathy for the husband who carried out the act of a mercy killing, but would still be obliged to impose a life sentence. The mandatory life sentence for murder means that once convicted of the offence, the defendants face the same penalty whether they are serial killers, terrorists or mercy killers. This inflexibility prevents the court from taking into account motive or circumstances, both of which can make a significant difference to the way in which society would view the individual offence.
A Defense of the Death Penalty Louis P. Pojman The death penalty serves as both a deterrent for would be murderers and a fitting punishment for those who intentionally and out of malice take the life of another human being. Retribution: It is sometimes argued that the death penalty serves as a form of revenge for the victims of heinous crimes. For those who argue from this stance, revenge is never the proper method for assigning punishment because it is done out of anger and with the intent of inflicting harm upon another human being. Vengeance itself is not the basis for designating the death penalty. Instead retribution is justification enough, although it may be accompanied by feelings of anger and hatred.
What is simple subjectivism? Explain and evaluate the two best objections to it. Simple subjectivism is a metaethical theory that poses that qualities such as good and bad are true relative to the individual; thus moral judgements are simply expressions of opinion. However, this does not mean that every sentence uttered is true, as someone may propose a claim that does not correctly report their internal, subjective state. Despite being a theory which seemingly encourages acceptance and moral rationality, subjectivism is deemed as flawed on two predominant levels.
While Ethical Naturalists believe it holds great importance as it can convey facts and help us to understand ethical theories, there are those who strongly disagree with this. For example Intuitionists, such as Moore, believe that our intuition is more useful when wanting to know how to act morally than knowing the definitions of ethical terms. Although Non-Cognitive theories disagree with the factual content of ethical statements, it is clear that they still see some significance in ethical language. However rather than seeing it as facts, they accept that morality is subjective and suggest that the importance of ethical language is provided by the emotions conveyed in the phrases used. Perhaps more so than Emotivists, Prescriptivists see ethical language as fairly meaningful.
In Gay-Williams’ paper “The Wrongfulness of Euthanasia” he concludes that euthanasia is morally wrong. He arrives at this conclusion on the basis that euthanasia is against our nature, it against our self-interests, and that the practice of euthanasia could corrupt doctors and nurses leading to cases of euthanasia where the patient may have been saved. First, Gay-Williams’ defines euthanasia in three parts. Euthanasia must be taking someone’s life. Another important aspect, the person who is being euthanized must be ill or injured in some way that recovery is not expected, such as a coma.
People who argue against physician suicide argue about the sanctity of life. There argument believes by legalizing physician assisted suicide there is likelihood for corruption, professional dishonesty, and efficient flaw. Those who oppose for holy reasons argue, our lives are given to us by a supreme being and others lives are not ours to take, but a donation from God and to destroy the gift God gave us is a sin and therefore immoral. However, a morally wrong act can be made morally right if the process used in deciding to perform it and the way it is performed are kindhearted and usefully
Reading Portfolio: Personal Response “Assisted suicide: A right or a wrong?” Even as I read about this controversial issue about euthanasia, it saddens me that people would want to argue whether it should be legal to choose to end their lives. But of course, they have their reasons too. Supporters of the legalization of euthanasia reason mainly on the basis that every person should have the freedom of choice to do whatever he wants with his body life, which includes controlling his own death and being given the right to maximum happiness that he can get. I think the arguments for euthanasia have a point; imagine and put yourself in the shoes of a terminally and critically ill person that suffers excruciating pain 24 hours a day, 7 days