To kill or to let die – What would you choose? You are standing on a platform at a train station. An out-of-control train carriage is coming down the track past the platform, there are three workers repairing the same track further down the line. They don’t have time to get out of the way of the carriage, the only way to save them would be to push the very large person next to you down the track, the person’s body will act to halt the train thus killing him but saving the three workers. A swift decision has to be made, if I was in this situation I would choose to stand by and watch, letting the three people die, because I believe it’s better to be blamed for indirect killing rather than directly have blood on my hands. I would let nature take its course.
Good arguments exist for both pushing the person onto the tracks and for not pushing them. The argument for not pushing the large person is from the no-harm principle which says that an action is permissible if and only if it does not harm others. Since pushing the person next to me onto the tracks below will kill them, and so harm them, the no-harm principle appears to say that the act of pushing them is not permissible. Since the act is not permissible, I should not therefore push them.
On the other hand, the argument for pushing comes from the minimize-harm principle which says that faced with two courses of action, you should choose that action which minimizes the amount of harm that results. Since pushing the person
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
Individuals in life or death situations should not be held accountable for their action. They are obviously going to want to be alive and happy, and not die or live in misery, so victims would most likely do whatever it takes to survive. Whoever made the decisions weren’t fully thinking it through because we all develop mentally at a different age for children and adults. Individuals who are in life or death situations don’t put themselves in that positions purposely to where they know they can die. In situations like these, everyone feels stress to the point where they have no other option until it is too late when they make their final choice like what happened in “The Seventh Man”
While walking down a city street, alarming cries for help ring out through the air, and it is observed that an individual that appears to be living well has a helpless, poor victim held down, relentlessly beating them to the ground and taking what little they have left for their own advantage and benefit. What would be the right thing to do; run away or try to help, either by stepping in or calling the proper authorities? The morally ethical thing to do would be to help and do what has to be done to stand up for what is right. This same general scenario is happening not too far from this country, where organ brokers are victimizing innocent and poverty-stricken mothers and fathers trying to find a way to provide and get
In the case study, Death, Duty, and Dignity, there are several central characters ' experiences to consider including Theresa, Ted, Peter and Faith, as well as Mary. Theresa went to conferences and wrote papers around 1994 when Oregon was having a debate on whether or not to pass a Death with Dignity Act. At the time, Theresa spoke against physician-assisted suicide because she felt that this form of help is allowing people to do what they want when it is time to die. This is not anything that Catholics view. Eventually her father, Ted, utilized physician-assisted suicide. He contacted her saying that he had grade IV glioblastoma multiforme, a deadly form of brain cancer. Ted had brain surgery to remove the tumor and had radiotherapy to increase his chance of survival. Well, unfortunately he began to have severe headaches and doctors told him that he had six months or less to live. Ted wanted their family physician to assist him in speeding up the process of his death because he did not want to go through the pain and forget who his family was. Theresa has a duty to support her father Shortly after this, Theresa was asked to present on this issue of physican assisted suicide at the conference of Death, Duty, and Dignity.
Worded perfectly by The Scientific American, a magazine analyzing controversial issues in America said, “About two thirds of the states use a combination of barbituric, paralytic and toxic agents for executions, despite a lack of scientific evidence supporting their effectiveness.” The procedure is still subject to FDA approval, the agency has avoided questions ruling on the mixtures efficacy in “delivering a merciful death” (citation). This brings to light a harsh topic: is lethal injection truly cruel and unusual? Human Rights Watch is an international non government aided organization dedicated to protecting and establishing the appearance of human rights around the world. The report the HRW released, “So Long as They Die: Lethal Injection in the United States” (citation) The report highlighted a fact not a lot of people consider, “Prisoners in the United States are executed by means that the American Veterinary Medical Association regards as too cruel to use on cats and dogs.” A lot of the civilians who simply only read about death
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.
I ought to prevent the bad because the mere presence of others does not lessen my duty. The inactions of others have no bearing on what I must do. And, every person in this case has an equal obligation to save the child’s life.
The right to die has been brought to the media and public spotlight through the cases of Karen Ann Quinlan, Cruzan v. Missouri, and Vacco v. Quill. This issue has been the topic of heated debate for years in the religious, scientific, and political community. This is because this topic ties into many communities and effects a large amount of people.
The football game was about to start Pj got there perfect time. it would seem stupid for a team that scored just 14 points in a Week Two loss to enter a game with the plan of winning a against an opponent averaging over 40 points per game, yet that was Saint Louis strategy when it came to Dewier Stadium on Friday night said the stadium announcer . IT was halftime 24-34 they was losing Pj had to do something so he gave his team a halftime peep talk. I worked hard this year to just lose. We totally agree with what you’re saying I believe a “hate” and “kill” mentality will have a negative effect on team brain in the future said Coach. I will tell our future kids that the thing to beat is their last performance. Can you do better than last game?
“Give me liberty or give me death,” Patrick Henry stated. In order words, people would rather be free than safe. Starting my first job, same sex marriage approval, and the bill of right prove that it's better having freedom than being being safe, because freedom give you the opportunities to live your own life.
The most thought provoking idea brought up in the discussion was from Sean, and he felt that if someone were to be in this situation, you must ask yourself, “does the risk of getting in trouble outweigh the trouble that your friend is already in”. Henry had found a news story about six teens in 2010, tried to save their friend from a flood in louisiana, but ultimately died because none of them knew how to swim. Sean had mentioned that if they looked at the situation and realized that, yes, their friend was in trouble, but no, they had no power to save him and attempting would put more people
A Review and Commentary On:A Time to Kill By John GrishamA Time to Kill written by John Grisham is a book that presents the high racial tensions in Canton Mississippi in the early 1990’s. The book opens with two young men, James Lewis Willard and Billy Ray Cobb, joy riding in their brand new yellow pick up truck decked out with Confederate flags. They speed though black neighborhoods throwing full beer bottles at people and houses, until they come across ten-year-old Tonya Hailey walking home from the grocery store. The men pull over, trap her, rape her repeatedly, beat her, hang her, throw her off a bridge and leave her for dead. Her siblings find Tonya later that day, barely alive, her father, Carl Lee Hailey., and the black community
Place a utilitarian in the scenario with the power to push a button that knocks the onlooker onto track saving the five people or standing by and doing nothing. The utilitarian would physically push the onlooker themselves to procure the safety of the group rather than that of the individual. Utilitarians believe in preservation, and preservation comes from numbers which is why they choose the lives of many rather than the few. Again, commendable they want to save as many people as possible, but can they really claim heroism if they literally through another person under the