The Doctrine Of Double Effect

“Who so sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.” (Genesis 9:6) There is an ancient tradition going back to biblical times that a fitting punishment for murder is the execution of the murderer. In this paper I will critically explain Pojman 's “Defense of the Death Penalty”. I will go over what his opinion on the death penalty and the deontologists and consequentialists point of views.

Reasonable people will generally go a long distance to protect their loved-ones. However, most reasonable people would believe that killing someone 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 (Casey). 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 (Casey). Then, Mr. Buzizi noticed that the victim had an exacto knife, and that his cousin had a serious wound on his neck (R v. Buzizi, para 24). For fear that the

Ochs (2013) “In order for such a homicide to be deemed non-felonious by the English courts and result in a pardon, the ‘slayer’ was required to do all that he could to avoid using deadly force. As a result of this requirement, fourteenth century English courts defined homicide committed in self-defense as ‘slaying out of literally vital necessity’. This definition marked the origins of the modern-day principle of the ‘duty to retreat’ in traditional American self-defense laws, which requires individuals to attempt to withdraw from a conflict prior to resorting to deadly force. (page 680). The law changed a few centuries later. The majority of homicides committed in self-defense were still recognized as excusable, but they started to expand exceptions to the general rule. Ochs (2013) “It was recognized that in most circumstances homicide se defendendo-homicide in self-defense was still considered excusable, but only when the slayer was

There are several theories that try to explain the morality of the actions; however, two stand out. the first is deontology, and the other one is utilitarianism. The former follow the idea that the consequences of you action hold no importance in what we ought to do. But rather, some actions are morally wrong or good by itself. The latter follows an opposite view in which the consequences of an action are what it makes an action moral. Specially, if that action produce the greatest happiness over unhappiness. In this essay I will focus on two Utilitarianism ramifications, act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. They both agree that consequences must be the greatest factor in deciding what we ought to do. Nonetheless they have one big difference. Rule Utilitarianism generalize acts and recreate the consequences of a rule. If the consequences are ultimately favoring, then it is morally right. By way of contrast, Act Utilitarianism evaluate each action individually, and similar situation would have different outcomes depending on the situation. There is no universal rule unlike rule utilitarianism.

The death penalty is the ultimate punishment. There is no harsher punishment than death itself. This nation, the United States of America, is currently one of fifty-eight nations that practice the death penalty, if one commits first-degree murder as of 2012. People that believe in the death penalty also believe that it will deter murders. In this paper I will argue that the death penalty does not deter criminals and that this nation should outlaw the practice.

The need for partial defence in murder cases has evolved through the common law and statue, in consideration of the weaknesses of the human mind to take control when faced with provocation and the challenges created by mental illness, which may result to serious violent. Court in England and Wales have experienced several difficulties in defining what “intention” (human mind) is in order to establish conviction for murder (R v Molony) 1985. This essay will therefore, discuss the need for partial defences to murder as “a buffer against the harsh effect of the mandatory life sentence for all cases of murder” in England and Wales.

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

In this essay, I will argue that utilitarianism cannot be defended against the injustice objection. Utilitarians may be able to reply to the injustice objection in some cases by invoking one of two replies, the ‘Long term consequences’ reply, in which utilitarians will avoid unjust actions that increase short-term utility because in the long-term they will not lead to the greatest good. The other reply that may help utilitarianism avoid injustice in some cases is the ‘Secondary principles’ reply, where some rule-based principles such as not murdering (because it generally decreases happiness) may avoid injustice. However, I will focus on the ‘bite the bullet’ objection,

In this circumstance the decision of the death penalty was not executed in similar means, since the conflict was deliberated as a violation of the 8th amendment. The examination of cruel and unusual punishment (Boss, 2012), remained significant due to difficulty of the court in deciding the characteristics of the amendment to validate punishments of elaborated offenses; numerous individuals in the U.S. still support the death penalty irrespectively of how it is banned in other countries. The attitude of this argument changes vividly after the opening argument, as genuine to dogmatic. The situation starts via vindicating the resources of capital punishment moreover, the lawbreaker is mindful of the magnitude and stipulation of murder, hence,

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

Classical utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory which holds that an action can only be considered as morally right where its consequences bring about the greatest amount of good to the greatest number (where 'good' is equal to pleasure minus pain). Likewise, an action is morally wrong where it fails to maximise good. Since it was first articulated in the late 19th Century by the likes of Jeremy Bentham and later John Stewart Mill, the classical approach to utilitarianism has since become the basis for many other consequentialist theories such as rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism upon which this essay will focus (Driver, 2009). Though birthed from the same

The Doctrine of Double Effect was first created by Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas believed that if you killed someone who was attacking you, you were justified in this action because the individual who was being attacked didn’t have an intent to kill the attacker from the beginning. Aquinas observes that “nothing hinders one act from having two effects, only one of which is intended, while the other is beside the intention. … Accordingly, the act

The doctrine of double effect if often invoked to explain the permissibility of an action that causes a serious harm, such as the death of a human being, as a side effect of promoting good ends. It is claimed that sometimes it is permissible to cause such harm as a side effect of bringing about a good result even though it would not be permissible to cause such harm as a means to bringing about the same good end. The reasoning is summarized with the claim that sometimes it is permissible to bring about as merely foreseen side effect a harmful event that it would be impermissible to bring about intentionally (Uniacke 1984).

The practice of the death penalty and capital punishment is a contemporary political issue that is widely debated throughout the United States. It is my opinion that capital punishment should either be discontinued or only reserved for the rarest of the rare case. In this essay, I will attempt to resolve the issue of whether the United States should continue or discontinue the practice of capital punishment by using the natural law theory set forth by Saint Thomas Aquinas and his greatest work, “Summa Theologiae”.

For the purposes of this essay the assumption will be that there is no after life or god. Eliminating the concept of god in a sense dissolves the issue of sinfulness and blameworthiness. Therefore a relativist stance will be adopted and the absolutist stance rejected. The issue of cowardice also should be addressed as arguably a soldier going to certain death is not a coward and few people would be able to harm him/herself. The taking of life can be considered under three categories, as an exercise in rational philosophical thought, as an action that has boundaries proscribed by the law, and lastly in a theological sense. It also is worthwhile and imperative to allude to the fact that suicide is only one form of extinguishing life, and