Utilitarianism Argument´s Death Justice Or Mercy?

This assignment will discuss a case involving an individual known to me. It centres on the real and contentious issue of the “right to die”, specifically in the context of physician-assisted death. This issue is widely debated in the public eye for two reasons. The first considers under what conditions a person can choose when to die and the second considers if someone ever actually has a ‘right to die’. The following analysis will consider solutions to the ethical dilemma of physician-assisted death through the lens of three ethical theories. It will also take into account the potential influence of an individual’s religious beliefs

Killing someone for killing someone else is not an appropriate punishment. According to the Constitution the death penalty is uncivil. The Eighth Amendment bars cruel and unusual punishment, and that’s what a lot of people say the death penalty is. People that have family members killed aren’t wanting the other person killed, just locked up. In 2015 Dylann Roof opened fire in a church and killed nine people. Melvin Graham was one of the victim’s brother and said “Even the ugliest of criminals should not be killed by the state.” Not only is the death penalty uncivil, many people get wrongfully accused.

One way utilitarianism will approach the death penalty in the movie Dead Men Walking is by questioning if it would benefit the greatest number. The death penalty would benefit the greatest number because the people would feel safer if Matthew Poncelet would not be able to harm anyone else in society. Moreover, the death penalty serves as general deterrence for society because they would learn from Matthew’s criminal actions and it serves as an example not to commit heinous crimes. When it comes to the movie Return to Paradise, utilitarianism analyzes the acceptance of culpability for the greatest number. When both Sheriff and Tony return back to Malaysia they are accepting culpability for the illegal substance the police found at the house.

“Doctors and nurses have sworn to preserve life and relieve suffering – but how to do this when the only way to end suffering is to end life?” (Lewis Vaughn, “Bioethics Principles, Issues, and Cases” pp.594) Should there be an upper hand to make these decisions for our healthcare practitioners? Laws have been set in each state that determine the legalization of physician assisted suicide. Although Louisiana is a conservative state when it comes to the issue of physician-assisted suicide, it should be legalized in my opinion. Ethically, there are theories that support this as well as laws given to our practitioners. By rejecting physician-assisted suicide, patients and their families are suffering needlessly.

In addition, putting someone in jail for life who murdered multiple people is unjust as he/she gets more than he/she ever gave his/her victims before they were murdered by the offending, as now he/she gets three meals a day and a place to rest their head until the day they die, something that a victim’s family may not be able to afford now depending on the family’s economic situation, including whether or not the victim was their main source of income (Carmical, Casey. "Capital Punishment Is Morally Justified."). In addition it provides a better sense of closure to the family of the departed, as now they know that the criminal has been punished to the full extent of the law (Carmical, Casey. "Capital Punishment Is Morally Justified."). In addition, taxpayer dollars from the victim’s family could go indirectly to keeping the murderer alive, and what sort of justice allows a victim’s family pay to keep

Many families want to see the criminal who killed or raped their family members suffer. They don't want to live life knowing its possible for them to do that to someone else. The goverment believes in certain situations that them using the death penalty will allow others to see what could happen to them if they commit that same crime. If the criminal can kill someone, then they will most likely kill someone else and it can be prevented. In today's world there is many who kill, rape, and do serious crimes who do not get the punishment they deserve. Of course not in all cases is execution the way to go, but in certain cases many would have to agree it could be neccessary.

The death penalty is supposed to deter murder and bring the justice that the murder families of the victims should be rewarded (Hyden). Although many scientific researches can conclude that it does not deter murder and the members of the murder victims’ family have rejected/rejecting the program because it retraumatizes them with long process of trials, appeals, and of course the media (Hyden). In contrast, a sentence of life in prison is certain and instant, allowing the families to move on knowing that the justice of the crime is being served. Comparing whether or not the death penalty should be legalized, the reasons as to why it shouldn’t be, are strong enough to change one person’s mind. The death penalty still should be illegal in the United States.

Premise 4: We have no right to risk (endanger) lives of the innocent people.Utiliarianists believe that prisoners could escape. Thus the death penalty is the only truly effective way ofachieving societal protection against the continuing threat posed by some convicted murderers. No matterWHAT the crime, WE as Americans have no right to kill another human being. We are not an eye for aneye country.Conclusion: Therefore, it is our moral obligation to retain (keep) the death penalty.Utilitarianists would say the fundamental justification for retaining the death penalty, lies in the fact thatthe death penalty is a uniquely effective deterrent. The death penalty costs multitudes more than what itcosts to keep someone in prison. If we were to work on strengthening our prisons security rather thankilling these convicts we wouldn’t have to worry about escape, the safety of guards, or killing potentiallyinnocent

Rule utilitarians look at classes of actions, such as lying, giving to charity, and murder, in a two step process. First, a majority of people must accept the action as morally correct. Then, morality can be determined by the results of the action. For example, if a majority of people were to accept murder as good, many people would be hurt. Therefore, murder is morally wrong. Unlike Kantian ethics, where intent is important and consequences are irrelevant, rule utilitarianism solely analyzes the results of a class of actions, regardless of the intent behind them.

With the idea of utilitarianism, the greater good for the greatest number of people is your best option always. If you must kill a killer to save potentially multiple other humans, then it is your best option. Imprisonment and rehabilitation both have room for error. With the death penalty, it is certain that killer will never murder again. This relieves the society from a specific threat, and gives the suffering families closure.

The Death Penalty. Immoral or moral; just or unjust? These are just a few of the questions people ask themselves when debating the Death Penalty which is arguably the most controversial topic of the United States today. Every time these words come up, we start yelling out our opinions on what we feel is right. Pro death penalty people shout deterrence across the room while the anti death penalty supporters shout about potentially killing an innocent man; some argue that is just and the murders deserve their punishment while others say we are murdering people too if we kill the suspect.

Your question on the applicability of the utilitarian moral theory to courtroom setting would be a fine example to argue for or against utilitarianism. My understanding of justice or court justice is the promotion of the good not only of the plaintiff but also of the defendant. Thus, it is for this reason, that potential jurors are screened to identify any biases or prejudices that would color any decision made for or against the defendant. However, there had been cases where innocents were found guilty of crimes they did not do, and guilty criminals were set free. You might ask, what has this example got to do with utilitarianism? My reply would be, the jurors in spite of the screening process were still individuals with their preset

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.

Philosophy branch which streamlines, protects and guides the concepts of being correct or incorrect is referred as Ethics. People learn this concept from their parents who got it from their parents and it is a chain. However philosophers claim that it is people’s belief which decide ethics along with human intuition. An individual at singular level conscientiously decides what is right and wrong and define a limit of pushing ethical behaviour and morality in being. Moral acceptability of any action can be judged from the points if action is understood by an individual well, the consequences of that action on public, fair treatment of action with all people respectfully and the way action is being performed, the motivation of people for it.

The problem with the death penalty is that it is a big waste of money. Yes, in some cases it can make people feel better, like they are getting revenge on the people that did the crime to their loved one or someone they know but that is really cruel. In the article, The Price of Justice it shows how the price were a few years ago and it can only of up from there “in 1988, The Miami Herald reported that the cost of the death penalty in Florida was $3.2 million per execution compared to $600,000 for life imprisonment.103 Similarly, The Dallas Morning News reported in 1992 that the trials and appeals of a capital case alone cost Texas $2.3 million per case on average”. Making the criminal sit in a jail cell that is not that big with other bad people is more of a punishment then just killing them. And it is a lot cheaper to do it that way as well. The cost of the death penalty is not reasonable because the state can’t even perform the death penalty the right way. And we can use the money for better things for our states and for our society so we can improve our comity’s so