Is It Ever Okay? Essay

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

Assuming that the killer is capable of such reasoning shows us the arrogance of our kind. In fact, "those who commit violent crimes often do so in moments of passion, rage and fear - times when irrationality reigns" (Information, "Capital Punishment" 107). Killing a human being as prevention to crime is, in essence, using a human being as a means rather than an ends.

There is a time where killing is a justified action. Times like this our self-defense, war, euthanasia, and assisted suicide. Another great example is in the book, by John Steinbeck, Of Mice and Men. George had to kill Lennie because Lennie’s punishment could have been worse, Lennie is not safe to be around, and George realized Lennie would never get better and the dream would never come true.

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.

Killing another is nowhere near “justifiable”. Imagine this, someone close to you is framed for a murder they didn’t commit. If your state had the death penalty, they could be punished for nothing. There are many other situations when killing another is unacceptable and wrong. Killing someone takes away the meaning of their life. It will hurt those around them and those close to them. We were all put on this Earth for a reason and everyone should be able to achieve the goals they want to in their life. Whether it’s capital punishment, euthanasia,or the case of George and Lennie, killing others is an unjustifiable act.

I, myself, don’t support the death penalty and I believe it’s unethical. There has have been many cases where someone has been sentenced to death row and then after they had already been executed, officials found out that they had the wrong person in custody, and once this is done it can’t be undone. Run on sentence, but it is an important point to make. Add an article citation here that has an example of this. There is also the fighting fire with fire argument, that killing someone for killing someone else doesn’t solve anything or make it justified. It doesn’t seem to make sense to say that “Because you killed someone, we’re going to get back at you by killing you.” This is called “retributive justice” Also, if the death penalty wasn’t enacted, these criminals could end up spending the rest of their lives in prison with the guilt and this could be a more harshharsher punishment than just being put to death. In some of the cases, it is family members or friends that

Reasonable people will generally go a long distance to protect their loved-ones. However, most reasonable people would believe that killing someone else in order to protect their loved ones would be immoral and harmful. In the case of R v. Buzizi [2013], a man killed another in a supposed effort to protect his cousin. On an early morning in Montréal, the accused’s cousin and the victim ensued in a brawl. The initial fight was broken up by a third party. A few moments later, the accused, Mr. Buzizi, who saw the initial assault from afar, intervened and pushed the victim. Then, Mr. Buzizi noticed that the victim had an exacto knife, and that his cousin had a serious wound on his neck. For fear that the victim was going to pull out the

Is it ever just to kill another human being? No, one cannot justly kill someone. Everyone has a time; and humans can’t alter the fates of another. In William Shakespeare’s play Julius Caesar, the main character, Julius Caesar is made out to be an ambitious and arrogant dictator in Rome. He is surrounded by childhood friends, including his best friend and murderer, Brutus. Brutus is manipulated by Cassius, a roman senator and part of the conspiracy, into believing romans want Julius Caesar dead, so they form a conspiracy to kill Caesar. Although, the Romans say Brutus is honorable, Brutus is not justified in killing Julius Caesar because the conspiracy is driven by jealousy, he is manipulated into believing Caesar should die and romans are

If we examine some arguments presented from both sides, opponents of the capital punishment claim that executing someone is nothing more than an immoral, state-authorized killing which undervalues the human life and destroys our respect for our government which itself says that killing is wrong. But the supporters of the death penalty think that certain murderers

First, if taking another person’s life will save someone else of equal or more harm, it is completely reasonable to take the chance of killing them by protecting another. It is shown in many modern events to this day, that there are situations like a person who had acquired hostages or is in the act of harming another, that police and other witnesses have to do whatever

   The law of God is, "Thou Shalt Not Kill" (Bible 79 ), and every system of ethics and rules of our society echoes that law. For decades, state and federal leaders have struggled with opposing views of the death penalty. Many minds have endured this difficult question-Who says it is right to take another human's life because of an act that he/she committed?

1. There are a number of dilemmas in sexual ethics such as homosexuality, marriage and divorce and pornography. For instance homosexuality is a major problem within sexual ethics because homosexual sex cannot lead to reproduction. However sexual ethic it differs between denominations compared to government law. Therefore these issues are a concern to religious belief; different faiths have different view on homosexuality or marriage and divorce.

Perhaps most importantly, one must consider the basic ethical question of hypocrisy. We must ask ourselves, "What type of message are we as a nation sending to the rest of the world and to our own citizens when we kill people who kill people to show that it is wrong to kill people?" By executing murderers, we are merely lowering ourselves to their level in order to express our primitive desire for retribution. Our society can never be called moral or democratic if we begin sacrificing individuals, without their consent, to 'the greater good.' Since capital punishment is supposedly intended to protect and avenge innocent lives, it has failed its purpose if, as it undoubtedly has and will, it causes even a few blameless people to be killed. The

Does taking another’s life actually avenge that of another? The disciplinary act of capital punishment, punishment through death, has been a major debate in the United States for years. Those in support of capital punishment believe that it is an end to the reoccurrence of a repeat murderer. The public has, for many years, been in favor of this few and pro-death penalty. Yet as time goes on, records show a decrease in the public and the state’s support of the continuation of capital punishment. Those against capital punishment believe it is an immoral, spends taxpayers’ money improperly, and does not enforce a way to rehabilitate criminals and/or warn off future crimes.

Thesis – Multiple outlooks have been taken on the ethics of pornography, and the means by which it may either negatively influence power in sexuality, or actually provide some sort of social value and worth. These different ethical perspectives display the flaws in the industry and what it represents; yet they also end up proving the fact that it can be modified with positive influence and that pornography is not something to be deemed utterly unethical.