Universal Definitions For Good And Bad Essay

Discerning good from evil is a particularly common theme in the present society, considering that it basically stands as a storyline for a series of books, motion pictures, video games, and similar concepts. Moreover, most of these products set clear definitions of the difference between good and evil by focusing on portraying evil as being associated with stereotypes. Similarly, good is associated with ideas such as honesty, the color white, or beauty, considering that these are stereotypes generally associated with the forces of good. Even with this, such stereotypes have made it difficult for people to have a complex understanding of the concept of morality.

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.

Throughout the history of man there has always existed a sort of rule pertaining to retribution for just and unjust acts. For the just came rewards, and for the unjust came punishments. This has been a law as old as time. One philosophy about the treatment of the unjust is most controversial in modern time and throughout our history; which is is the ethical decision of a death penalty. This controversial issue of punishment by death has been going on for centuries. It dates back to as early as 399 B.C.E., to when Socrates was forced to drink hemlock for his “corruption of the youth” and “impiety”.

First of all, man has been killing since the beginning of time. Even in the Bible, Cain killed Abel and that was in the very beginning of time thousands and thousands of years ago. It seems it is human nature to kill and

"More than 4,500 people have been executed in the United States since 1930. There is no way of knowing how many have been executed in U.S. history because executions were often local affairs, with no central agency keeping track of them (Maloney, 1999)." Over 4,500 people were executed and this doesn't even include the unreported deaths. Decades ago, death penalty cases were not even to be reported in many times. For many years, people have been rationalize themselves for death penalty as " an eye for an eye"(2010).This "eye for an eye" statement is no longer giving any excuses for killing humans. The controversial idea of whether humans are rational enough to decide someone's life or death has been questioned. Humans absolutely don't have

     Throughout history the human race has fought over what was fair and just punishment for the killing of another human. The bible tells us, “Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death” (Numbers 35:31). Methods of execution have included such practices as crucifixion, stoning, drowning, burning at the stake, impaling and beheading (Mircrosoft Encarta, 2002). Most of all these events were made public so as to show a deterrent to others, “warning so to speak that this awaits you when you murder”. Public executions were a common place event in society until the 1830’s due to the deterrent effect of them. In the 1900’s through this deterrent event wasn’t public anymore for the reason society wanted to hide its manners from the public eye to save ourselves from the horror of the event itself (Microsoft Encarta, 2002). Executions have been said to have a deterrent effect on the crime of murder, although there is little to no evidence to prove this. The decision to kill antoher human is dependent on numerous different events that are in turn influenced by religion and beliefs. Example of a more commonly used verse is in the bible itself, “ And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye,

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

To begin, Marquis addresses the widely-accepted conception of why it is wrong to kill humans. It is neither that fact that our death will inflict pain on the murder or the victim’s family but rather the loss of the life. When a human seizes to exist, they are deprived of all future experiences, feelings, emotions, or activities that they would have if they were alive. Marquis supports this by stating two considerations:

We often seek to “do unto others which is done to us”. The concept of revenge is directly mirrored in our prison system. Once someone commits a crime, they are then, through the 7th Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights, subject to go to trial before a jury. If a jury of the defendant’s “peers” then deems the appropriate punishment for the crime that they are being tried for. The evocation of the death penalty grew very controversial mostly due to that reason. Essentially what was implied is that a human’s life is put into the hands of total strangers who in most cases are only knowledgeable of a minimal section of that person’s life and character. In an editorial research report on the death penalty, written in 1963, Jeanne Kuebler includes a quote by A. Francart on the appeal of capital punishment. “Capital punishment, its opponents insist, is revenge, not deterrence or protection, and as such lessens reverence for the sacredness of human life. ‘The lesson the scaffold always provides,’ Francart wrote, ‘is that human life ceases to be sacred when it is considered useful to suppress it…’” (Kuebler). A key point that Francart makes in his quote is the idea of revenge. Our society views revenge as a readily available convention to utilize whenever they see fit. Revenge, in its simplest form, deals with the notion that we all must become equal. In the ancient Code of Hammurabi this concept is referred to as “An Eye for

The victim did not do anything to deserve death, the criminal did. To counter the argument that capital punishment is uncivilized, Van Den Haag points out that most civilizations have had the death penalty at some point in their history. He also addresses the argument that the death sentence is degrading by showing that philosophers, such as Immanuel Kant, have said that execution affirms the criminal’s humanity by affirming their ability to make decisions and rationalize.

In the cases of capital punishment killing can be justified. According to the article, When Murder Is Punished with Death, fewer criminals will murder, “The deterrent power of punishment is axiomatic, criminal law would be meaningless without it” (Jacoby). In

Many among ours would respond to villainy with the non-sequitur of contemporary human sacrifice intended to deter further illicit actions and enforce justice, which is honorable, but nonetheless very primitive and childish and should be abrogated conceding to the fact that it is ineffective, cruel, and a direct threat to the thriving of humanity. The fact that the government would claim the right to order the death of its civilians is in itself a reason to oppose its authority to do so. Many conservatives claim that, so long as the death penalty is administered only for particularly heinous crimes as substantiated by irrefutable evidence, capital punishment is not comparable to crime. If the implication is that all people who are guilty of crime are undeserving of mercy and incapable of redemption, this is petty cruelty. If a government administers capital punishment seeking vengeance, an impractical motivation based on emotion, with a disregard for human life, capital punishment becomes even more comparable to crime. If this argument conveys that the government’s actions are defensive, I must again refer to the fundamentally totalitarian relationship between a government and its people reflected by capital punishment; the government is allowed to act ruthlessly, killing detained civilians while merciful tactics are not only possible, but are more effective as demonstrated by various, more civilized nations. The continuous implementation of human sacrifice has only ailed society with a dogmatic conviction which is easily corruptible, justifying an atrocious indifference to human life, discrediting rehabilitation, and impeding the progression of human rights, which is why a nation striving for liberty and progressive values must dismantle this foul apparatus of

The world is filled with many different words, some harder to define than other. One of these difficult words is considered by many to be evil. The definition of the word evil depends entirely upon the reader or writers perspective upon the word. The most innocent and simple ways that of would define evil is by simply saying that evil is the exact opposite of good, but what is good? In order to understand the true meaning of evil, we must first be able to describe what good is, what has goodness produced, and what has evil truly defied.

screamed, struck, but, tore"(153). There is no reason for any human being to kill another human

The death penalty has been present, in one way or another, for virtually as long as human civilization has existed. The reasons why are apparent; it is intrinsically logical to human beings that a person who takes the life of another should also be killed. This philosophy is exemplified in the famous Biblical passage, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." However, in light of recent research into ethics, criminology and the justice system, the time has come for us to re-examine our ageless paradigm of revenge.