Ethical Controversy

People from all walks of life face many ethical dilemmas. These dilemmas have consequences. Our worldview determines how we deal with these dilemmas, and guides us to the right decisions. In this essay, I will examine an ethical issues through my Christian worldview. I will also present other viewpoints, and compare them to mine.

Now, in order to truly look at the topic at hand, I feel that it is necessary to examine a few different viewpoints when it comes to this ethical issue. These viewpoints are called deontological, and utilitarianism. Each approach provides a unique look in the idea of capital punishment and will help to look at the consequences at the present time, as well as in the future. The question of whether it is ethically acceptable to take the life of someone is at the heart

On one end of the argument is the belief that all human lives are of equal merit, because they are humans it gives them equal merit. Therefore no human should ever take the life of another, even if that individual has taken other lives. This argument is mostly favored by people of religious faith, but there are some sensible individuals who also adhere to this as an ethical position. At the other end of the spectrum is an argument in favor of the death penalty because of its ability to get rid of a problematic human so that they will be able to do no more harm. This is a very utilitarianism-like perspective of the death penalty. To examine this perplexing ethical dilemma one must first figure out their stance on what death is, like Socrates would.

Capital punishment, otherwise known as the death penalty, is a controversial subject which has been argued for decades due to the ethical decisions involved. People believe the death penalty is the right thing to do and that it is the perfect example of ‘justice’ while others believe that it is immoral and overly expensive. The death penalty is not a logical sentence for criminals, it doesn’t give them the right type of justice and it is immoral.

Capital Punishment is a moral controversy in today’s society. It is the judicial execution of criminals judged guilty of capital offenses by the state, or in other words, the death penalty. The first established death penalty laws can date back to the Eighteenth Century B.C. and the ethical debates towards this issue have existed just as long. There is a constant pro-con debate about this issue, and philosophers like Aristotle and Mill have their own take on this controversy as well. Aristotle is against capital punishment, while Mill believes it is morally permissible.

In the United States, the use of the death penalty continues to be a controversial issue. Every election year, politicians, wishing to appeal to the moral sentiments of voters, routinely compete with each other as to who will be toughest in extending the death penalty to those persons who have been convicted of first-degree murder. Both proponents and opponents of capital punishment present compelling arguments to support their claims. Often their arguments are made on different interpretations of what is moral in a just society. In this essay, I intend to present major arguments of those who support the death penalty and those who are opposed to state sanctioned executions application . However, I do intend to fairly and accurately

There are 2 ethical issues that I observed during my research when writing the previous post on the killing cousins. The 2 ethical issues are: The death penalty and the time of execution. An ethical issue is defined as a problem or situation that requires a person or organization to choose between alternatives that must be evaluated as right (ethical) or wrong (unethical).

Capital punishment, the state imposed penalty of death, continues to be one of the most controversial issues in contemporary American public policy. Since the earliest days of its employment in the colonial era until today, citizens have struggles with the issue of when and under what circumstances the taking of a human life by the state can be morally or legally justified. For some opponents of the death penalty, the simple answer is that the taking of a human life is always morally and ethically wrong, even when conducted under the auspices of state authority as a legal punishment. In contrast, proponents of capital punishment have contended with equal fervor that the death penalty is morally justified as a form of retributive justice,

In the legal system of the United States, there are many controversial topics and crises that have no one solution. Following suit, there is the question of ethics that exists within such an ideology. Some think that the current way of thinking is a sufficient way to run a country; others see changes that need to be executed immediately. The fact of the matter is as such, no one social institution is perfect. Therefore, the legal system is not expected to be flawless and the epitome of ethical conduct. Acting with morality is not the strong suit of the U.S. government, especially when it comes to the incarceration of dangerous criminals. Two of the issues that can be seen are the death penalty and the life sentence. Both controversial, it

Utilitarianism is the idea that whatever is decided to be best for the greatest number of people is the best course of action. When applied to the criminal justice system, utilitarianism becomes "consequentialist" in nature; meaning that the idea of the punishment of criminals, and its effect on society, must be taken into account. ("Punishment-Theories of Punishment") In other words, society must benefit from the punishment and not be

On Thursday August 4, 2016, I was at work. I was informed that there was a young man asking for my work schedule (what days I worked and time) and what car I drove. After no information was given out to him (Tala Toilolo) left my work location in which shortly after Johnnie contacted a former co-worker and a current employee. He asked for the same information. Someone came to my job before my shift was over to watch out for me and inform me of everything she had heard Johnnie and affliates were after. This person warned me to "watch my back, to never be alone, and that whenever I go out whether it was work or anywhere else to not leave anywhere until I made sure my ride arrived ." If someone overhears all this and is friends with

Mills, you talk about the pursuit of happiness and the absence of pain as being the deciding factor in distinguishing what is ethical, but I would argue that the death penalty does not create happiness but breeds more pain. The murderer’s family is now grieving a loss, and often times the execution of a murderer adds to the trauma the victim’s family is already experiencing. How do you account for this in your theory?

In the movie Dead Man Walking issues and controversies regarding the death penalty or capital punishment were brought to my attention. The main issues discussed in the video were regarding the morality of the death penalty, the appeal process, the voice of the victims surviving family, allowing the guilty a spiritual advisor and remorse and forgiveness of the accused. Many of these issues relate back to topics that are discussed in our Death Penalty course. This video made myself reflect on my own moral stance concerning the death penalty and gave insight to how serious and how large of an issue capital punishment really is. The emotional aspect on the victims families and convicted killer created a dilemma that forced the viewer to relate to both sides of the issue and created a dilemma in how one should respond to the problem with the death penalty.

Killing another has been a huge debate for decades because it is such a moral issue. For example, in the 60-70’s when the death sentence was widely used, and not every U.S. citizen thought is what the right for states to shoot or hang people, even if they were criminals. However killing others can be justifiable in the cases of military ethics,hunting for trophies, and the case of George And Lennie.

In a desperate moment, people can make decisions that can destroy the lives of others. The human’s selfish heart will undoubtedly protect itself no matter what the cost, even if the cost is ending someone else’s life. In the case of the sailors stranded in a lifeboat at sea, the question raised is whether or not the men were morally corrupt by killing the cabin boy. There are two basic approaches used to determine the outcome of this case. The first has to do with deciding if the benefits of killing a person outweigh the costs (Sandel 32). The second approach says that consequences are not the only factor to consider because some moral duties and rights are more important (Sandel 33). “Suppose you were the judge, assume that you were asked to decide whether killing the cabin boy was morally permissible, how would you rule (Sandel 32)?”