Men Were Morally Corrupt By Killing The Cabin Boy

Capital punishment is a difficult subject for a lot of people because many question whether or not it is ethical to kill a convicted criminal. In order to critically analyze whether or not it is ethical, I will look at the issue using a utilitarianism approach because in order to get a good grasp of this topic we need to look at how the decision will impact us in the future. The utilitarianism approach will help us to examine this issue and see what some of the consequences are with this topic of capital punishment. For years, capital punishment has been used against criminals and continues to be used today, but lately this type of punishment has come into question because of the ethical question.

Capital punishment is a sentence that is given to someone that has committed a capital crime. This is a subject of great debate; some people agree and some do not. There are times when a crime is so heinous that the majority would seek capital punishment. Susan Gissendaner received this sentence for plotting to kill her husband, although her boyfriend actually killed her husband. Since being in prison, Susan has undergone a conversion and transformation. She is now a model prisoner. Due to Susan’s transformation, they are trying to have her sentence changed. Should Susan’s sentence be commuted to life in prison is the question being asked? This paper will answer the question by providing a moral judgment viewed by two non-consequentialist theories. The strengths and weaknesses of these positions will be assessed. Whether I agree or disagree will be answered and explained.

Moral codes are controversial, diverse, and defining. Everyone lives with a standard measure of ethics that tells them right from wrong. In the stories “R.M.S. Titanic”, “Into Thin Air”, “The Dark Side of Everest”, and “Explorers Say There’s Still a lot to Look For”, one or more characters are faced with one decision; save another man and risk their life, or stay safe and leave the others.

In this paper, I will explain John Stuart Mill’s moral theory of Utilitarianism, what I think it means, and how it works. I will also explain the Dax Cowart case, and determine if Dax’s choice to die was morally right or wrong. In order to fully understand the implications of Dax’s decision, and to accurately determine its affect on those his decision involves, I will break down and analyze the affect of Dax’s decision for Dax, his mother, Ada, and the Doctor. Lastly, I will gather prior evidence and form a valid conclusion of whether Dax’s choice was morally right or wrong.

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

Actions and inactions all have moral implications; they are either right or wrong depending on the individual and what s/he believes or feels is right or wrong. Each person’s conduct can and does have implications and ramifications. For every action there is an equal and/or opposite reaction not only for the average person but also for professionals; especially in the area of law enforcement, criminal justice, and criminal procedure. Just discussed is known as moral philosophy.

We believe that Gilligan’s distinction between a morality of care and a morality of justice is a distinction held in the minds of all human beings… However, these two senses of the word moral do not represent two different moral orientations existing at the same level of generality and validity. We see justice as both rational and implying an attitude of empathy. It is for this reason that we make the following proposal: i.e. that there is a dimension along which various moral dilemmas and orientations can be placed. Personal moral dilemmas and orientations of specials obligation, as we have just discussed them, represent one end of this dimension and the standard hypothetical justice dilemmas and justice orientation represent the other end (Kohlberg, Levine, and Hewer,

Throughout life, one might observe the different ways that people act. Even though every individual might have his or her own interpretation of the word ethics, it is commonly referred to as a set of morals for people to live by. Every individual has the choice to make ethical or unethical decisions when reacting to a situation. In William Shakespeare’s play, Macbeth, a noble Scottish general acts unethically when he makes the decision to kill his own king (Macbeth 54). The Count of Monte Cristo, written by Alexandre Dumas, contains many characters who decide to act unethically for a plethora of reasons. What most people forget when acting unethically are the consequences that are soon to follow.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, Your Honor, a terrible crime has been committed. Around five months ago, an aeroplane crashed into an abandoned island. This plane was carrying children and the only adults were the pilot and copilot who died on the scene. The children that survived created a society that kept them alive for two months, give or take a few weeks. They established a society where everyone had a place; a society that was ruled by a single chief, which was one of the elder boys. This boy tried to the best of his ability to keep everyone safe and keep peace among all the children. Ladies and Gentlemen, not all of the boys survived, some were killed by their fellow island mates. One of these boys was named Simon. Simon was killed

The third view is that even during supreme emergencies strict jus in bello laws must be observed; if we allow for exceptions the integrity of the rules themselves comes into question. The fourth view, proposed by Walzer, is to acknowledge a multidimensionality of morality and thereby invoke a paradox: the means by which we must necessarily respond in supreme emergencies are both immoral but morally necessary; they are both morally right and morally wrong, and we must learn to live with that contradiction. Orend himself, who proposes the fifth view, argues that Walzer cannot have his cake and eat it, too. He suggests instead that, while supreme emergency measures are sometimes necessary to secure victory, they are undoubtedly immoral. They are wrong, and while they are also necessary, we cannot pretend that they are moral because they are necessary. But Orend does agree that sometimes during war such measures are necessary to secure victory of victim over aggressor, and therefore a larger justice.

An innocent man is wrongly executed whilst a man who raped and murdered a mother and her thirteen year old daughter spends the rest of his life with three meals a day and cable television. Which of these is the bigger injustice? The use of the death penalty to punish serious crimes is a very controversial topic and there is much debate surrounding the issue. This paper will briefly discuss arguments supporting and against the use of the death penalty.

When it comes to moral and legal problems, what is right or wrong usually gets clouded by details. The gray matter comes to play in deciding who was right or wrong in the short stories “A Father’s Story” and “Uncle”. In “A Father’s Story’, Luke Ripley was in the right for covering up his daughter’s crimes. Who wouldn’t do anything to keep their child safe no matter their age? The length a person is willing to go to keep their child safe in unmeasurable. Whereas in “Uncle” the niece is completely in the wrong. Despite our brains not reaching full maturity until the age of twenty-five, this middle-school-aged should know it is wrong to attack someone who did nothing to her with large gardening tool, continue to torture him after initially

At first glance, Utilitarian moral theories may seem to support the idea of torturing this innocent man. If we look at this situation we see that there is a dilemma of hurting one man, or having to bear the death of many. We may say that since the basis of Utilitarianism is

Within this scenario Hardin appeals to the readers with the presentation of a circumstance in which only two outcomes seem probable. Either the passengers help ten more individuals and drown, or they neglect to help any, and float securely away with the "safety factor" still intact. Hardin disregards the idea of helping some people, even if selected in a fairly arbitrary way: "Suppose we decide to preserve our small safety factor and admit no more to the lifeboat. Our survival is then possible although we will have to be constantly on guard against boarding parties" (2). He insinuates that once the decision is made to help some, the lifeboat passengers must attempt to save all of those drowning, which is clearly not feasible given the carrying capacity of the lifeboat. Although the boat's capacity should not exceed the admission of more than ten people, why not admit three, four, or even those ten? It seems rather unreasonable to deny help to every individual, when, although not all can be rescued, the boat clearly holds the space for more. The same ideology may be applied in other philosophical debates, including the death penalty, as we discussed in lecture. Ernest Van Den Haag, a defender of the death penalty, explains in his article that the importance of punishment is not whether every individuals gets what they deserve, but rather that some, rather than none, of

This essay will consider what legal punishment is; it will draw a distinction between the two main categories.[3] It will focus on utilitarianism