More handpicked essays just for you.
Introduction ethical decision making and moral judgment
Ethical decision making and behavior
Introduction to ethical decision making and moral judgment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Albert Camus once said “A man without ethics is a wild beast loosed upon this world.” Some people feel that no matter what, it is never right to take another person’s life, while others feel that there are numerous situations which make it moral to kill another person. Most, however, are stuck between these two polar opposites. To speak generally, the majority of people are in this moral gray zone and do not have strong feelings one way or the other. It can be heavily debated, though: is it ever moral to kill someone? An example of a situation where it may be seen as moral is when the person being killed is or was a criminal. If a person has murdered 7 children, a lot of people will obviously feel that this person have lost the …show more content…
There are hardly any situations that are perfectly evil or moral actions. Many, many arguments could be made for and against killing another person. For example, if a group of people was being mugged, should they defend themselves, or risk being killed by their attacker? Around 259 attackers died by self-defence of their victims in 2012 (LATimes). Whether the attacker deserves to die or not is hard to state; rather, it is much easier to say that the victims deserved to defend themselves. The argument that could be made to defend the conspiracy is that they acted in self-defence. As it is seen in the play, Caesar has taken deliberate steps to ensure that he would have no competition (I, ii, 200-214 ). The conspirators mostly commit the assassination out of jealousy and hatred for Caesar, but Brutus acts out of defense for the Roman Republic. But does it really count as self-defense if Caesar made no outspoken threats? Legally, as soon as immediate threat is taken away, self-defense is no longer an “excuse” for killing an offender (Open …show more content…
Many argue that euthanasia and assisted suicide are humane ways to relieve a suffering person from their pain. Whether a person is chronically sick, mentally ill, or has a terminal illness and will die in a lot of pain, it can be justified very easily to let the person go instead of making them suffer. Most arguments against such euthanizations, such as “thinking about the family who will be affected” or “all live being important,” are fairly selfish and do not hold much weight in the situations they are involved in. If a man is in constant pain and can barely function, why should he be forced to live? If a woman is quickly dying, should her spouse and children be forced to watch her wither away? People are allowed to make medical choices when it comes to their bodies. It is inherently less moral to force one to suffer than it is to keep them around for their supposed
The Jim and the Indians example illustrates a situation in which a man must choose whether to violate his moral code in order to save innocent lives. In this scenario, Jim is a visitor in an area in South American were twenty innocent Indians have been lined up and are about to be killed for showing resistance against their government. The man in charge of killing these Indians has offered Jim a deal: Jim can kill one of the Indians himself and the man will let all of the rest go. However, if Jim does not accept the deal, the execution of all twenty Indians will be carried out as planned. It is morally wrong to murder but is it permissible in this case if it means saving nineteen innocent lives? This scenario brings about the question if there are exceptions to moral code, or if certain actions are wrong in all circumstances.
Majority of people would say that killing an innocent person is horrible. People say killing someone is wrong no matter what. Though it depends what the reason is for. For instance, if someone is a murderer, than they should be put in jail as soon as possible. If someone innocent is causing too much trouble, than get their families permission
whatever it takes to keep them alive. That is not moral, that is legal. But
Would you say that it’s ever moral to kill an innocent person? What do you consider a living person? When their heart has a beat, when they’re breathing? After a lady is pregnant for five weeks their baby 's heart has started to tick, though you can’t
3) Though the claim that death penalty serves as a deterrent is valid, it is controversial in its soundness. It is sound that criminals fear the death penalty. Indeed, death penalty is fearful, as it is irrevocable and takes away the life and future of the criminal sentenced to it. However, the evidences supporting the second premise that is the core function of the claim for the deterrence argument is too excessive. In the letter, the author first presents his own experience to prove that the fear of death penalty deters offenders from carrying a gun. However, using an experience as a proof for deterrence for such a complex and serious punishment as the death penalty is extreme. While supporters of the author may respond with the author’s credibility as a police officer for thirty years, personal experience and insight can’t be extrapolated with possibilities of bias...
Is murder ever truly justified? Many people might proclaim the adage, "Two wrongs don't make a right,” while others would argue that the Old Testament Bible states, "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" (Deuteronomy 19:21). Andre Dubus explores this moral dilemma in his short story, Killings. The protagonist, Matt Fowler, a good father and husband, decides to take revenge for his son's murder. Richard Strout is a bad man who murders his soon-to-be ex-wife's lover. These facts are complicated by the complexity of interpersonal relationships when seen through the lens of Matt’s conviction, Strout’s humanity, and ultimately Matt’s personal sacrifice on behalf of his loved ones. Though on the surface this tale might lead someone to think that Dubus is advocating for revenge, a closer look reveals that this a cautionary tale about the true cost of killing another human as readers are shown how completely Matt is altered by taking a life.
This is because if you are doing it after contemplating it and for protection and others, it should be deemed as correct. That is why a charge in court can be taken away if the jury finds it self-defense. It is not morally correct but, it is not something you should be sentenced to jail for committing. Although it is unfortunate that people die, it is an everyday life occurrence. It just depends on the way they die that makes it stand out. Murder is never permitted and punishable. Killing out of hate, anger, and being mentally unstable is not allowed, therefore is considered murder. Both protagonists did what they ordered to do to stay alive and protect other people from getting hurt. They did not want to kill, but it had come to be their last
Ethics and morality are the founding reasons for both supporting and opposing the death penalty, leading to the highly contentious nature of the debate. When heinous crimes are com...
The issues in the euthanasia debate usually revolve around patients who are terminally ill and/or suffering intractable pain. The patient must fully think about every aspect of what euthanasia would involve. I think that once a patient is seeking to end his or her life due to illness; they must have a will in place and also note the reason why they want to end their life. Euthanasia does raises lots of worrying ethical dilemmas like in what condition euthanasia can be justify, is there any ethical difference among killing someone and letting them die, is there any right to end the life of an individual who is suffering from serious
... greater pain and anguish for longer periods of time than my father did, I believe euthanasia is the only compassionate form of relief we can provide. I believe it is morally important to allow an individual to die with respect for his or her dignity, while respecting his or her autonomy. Because of these reasons, euthanasia is morally justified when administered under strict controls.
... different possible answers, and it is all up to speculation. I personally believe that homicides can be justified in very few scenarios, but can be, nonetheless. Pertaining to Caesar, I believe Brutus had justifiable motive to kill Caesar, and the homicide, similar to the murder of Osama Bin Laden was committed to stop a tyrant from gaining more power. Had Brutus let Caesar live, he would’ve become a sovereign and all hell would’ve broke loose. Caesar would’ve tromped all who stood before him, and ancient Europe would’ve become an ant under Caesar’s boot. If Brutus really did kill Caesar for the good will of Rome, I do not believe he was in any way a bad man, and even proved how strong of a man he was. In most cases, homicides are ugly, heinous crimes. But in a select few instances, they can be not only justifiable, but the overall best outcome of a situation.
This also helps it’s free up medical funds to help other people. In other cases, it could be a freedom of choice if the patient wants to end their life without going through anymore suffering. A lot of argument is over whether Euthanasia devalues life or if it is against human morals to take another life. While a person's decisions do play a role in this, most of the time it will be a physician's choice to see if the patient should live or not.
Killing can help defense yourself from bad environments that are surrounded and no matter what the situation is, it’s always a good thing to defend yourself or for others. It’s not murder if that person is trying to save theme self or others that are around. Killing a person, they will be charge with manslaughter.
Consequences for being wrongly accused can very from a minor punishment to the incorrect use of the death penalty;very few of these mistakes have been made. Yet some people rationalize and conclude that these small risks are enough to completely rule out the use of the death penalty. Although some families and friends of victims want the extreme punishment, some families believe the process make it more difficult to move past the issue (Death Penalty Can Prolong Suffering For Victims). Murder is one of the reasons that the death penalty is used and the friends and family of the victim believe it is just as bad for the courts to decide that murder should be committed again to gain “justice’. These people do not want others to kill for them because they see the process as a crime of the same caliber committed against their friend or family member and they are not the reason the crime had to be committed.
First of all, euthanasia saves money and resources. The amount of money for health care in each country, and the number of beds and doctors in each hospital are limited. It is a huge waste if we use those money and resources to lengthen the lives of those who have an incurable disease and want to die themselves rather than saving the lives of the ones with a curable ailment. When we put those patients who ask for euthanasia to death, then the waiting list for each hospital will shorten. Then, the health care money of each country, the hospital beds, and the energy of the doctors can be used on the ones who can be cured, and can get back to normal and able to continue contributing to the society. Isn’t this a better way of using money and resources rather than unnaturally extend those incurable people’s lives?