Imagine barely surviving a life-or-death situation, then come to find out you’re going to be punished for doing what was necessary to live. I believe this is wrong. Many people all across the world have experienced some sort of accountability for their actions needed to overcome a deadly situation. People should not be held accountable for their actions in life or death situations. The first reason that people should not be held accountable for their actions in life-or-death situations is because of survivors' guilt. When a person has to experience such a traumatic event, it really takes a toll on them mentally. Survivor’s guilt is when a person feels guilt for someone else’s death or the actions they made involved in these deadly situations. The …show more content…
Another quote from the same story says, “Despite all these precautions, I couldn’t get rid of the image of myself drowning” (Murakami 48). This tells us that even after years, he is still being traumatized by this indescribable situation. The mental side of these life-threatening experiences is enough of a punishment for those who have survived. The second reason that people shouldn't be punished for actions taken for survival in deadly situations is because of fight or flight. Fight or flight is the instinct that people have in dangerous situations to either stay and fight for survival or run away from danger to save their lives. In paragraph 30, Murakami states, “As clearly as I knew what I ought to be doing, I found myself running the other way.” The text explains that his instinct in this deadly situation was to run, which saved his life. Another quote from The Voyage of the James Caird says, “Encamped on Elephant Island, Shackleton decided that he and 5 others would sail in one of the lifeboats 800 miles” (Alexander 1). This shows they had to leave to survive, showing the instinct of fight or
In the article it talks about how it was a extremely ordinary day for the main character and he had no indications that today would be his last day on earth. With that in mind, this man chose to be courageous not knowing the consequences of his actions. "Every time they lowered a lifeline and flotation ring to him, he passed it on to another of the passengers". When the water was to take this mans life, it was unbeknownst to him, but he still had the courage to pass the rope to save another. Courage is not a attitude that one might claim in just a day. It is a characteristic that is made, created, and molded as you use it. With unfathomable courage, this heroic man passed the rope one last time, knowing he would never lay a hand on it again. Imagine the character he would have had to possess in order to utilize his agency, without hesitation, by passing on his chance of life to someone he didn't even
wrong in today?s society. Many countries have, thankfully, relinquished this barbaric practice but, unfortunately, many continue to do so. I firmly believe that there are far better means of punishment. As I said before, do two wrongs make a right?
In the article, “The Man in the Water” the author, Roger Rosenblatt, shows humans potential selflessness. After a plane crashes into the ocean, one man, the hero of the story, saves the lives of many before saving himself. As the rescuers were handing down the floaties to bring people to safety, every time one was given to this man he risked his life and handed it to someone else. Every time that he decides to save someone else he is one step closer to dying, and he knows that too, but instead he helps those in need around him. Although in the end he did not survive, what he did had effects on those watching. It showed people that any person could be a hero. The man in the water was a man with courage, and no fear, he sacrificed his life for the life of many who may not have survived if it wasn't for him or what he had done. While nature was against him and the people he fought against it to let those people live the rest of their life. In the article, the author, Roger Rosenblatt demonstrates the potential heroism and
When somebody gets into a situation like that, they need to decide how much they value their life, because if they really truly value it, then they will do whatever it takes to survive. For example, “In January 1982, Steven Callahan set sail from the CAnary Islands on a small boat he built himself. The boat sank six days into the trip, and Callahan was left adrift on a 5-foot life raft. With only three pounds of food and eight pints of water, a solar still and a makeshift spear Callahan managed to until his rescue 76 days later. Callahan had to contend with malnourishment, sunburn and repeated shark attacks.
As a child, everyone grew up with punishments when they committed wrongful acts. For example, when a child draws on the wall, they are punished by their parents because they did something that isn’t right. This was a way to teach their child, the parents punish their child so they will not make the same mistake again. Murderers who are guilty should obviously know the severe punishment when taking a life and committing wrongful actions. If someone suffers because of you, it is only morally right for you to suffer as much and possibly more.
When someone finds themself in a life-or-death situation, their judgement becomes clouded. People can make a decision that they may regret in the long run, but it has saved their life. Most of the time, these people do things that they don’t know enough about- leading to clouded judgement in life-or-death situations. They do not inform themselves as much as they should, and they decide to do something that would put them in threat of danger. People take risks every day, they know what these risks are- but they still choose to go through with their actions. People in life-or-death situations should be held accountable for their actions because they have control over putting themselves in these types of situations that have any risk.
It is the belief of many that capital punishment is cruel and unjust. Although others would state the opposite to say that if you have committed murder, you to shall be put to death. In America anyone can have a right to believe that someone should live even if they have committed murder, especially if they have asked for forgiveness and all has been forgiven. Can it be justified that if anyone commits murder and then asked for forgiveness they be allowed to live and not be punished? Justice must be served here on earth as well as after deat...
Unfortunately, we live in a society where people do not want to take responsibility for their actions. It seems those that work and follow the law are punished for being upstanding citizens. We need to break out of the “excuse culture”. If you don’t work, you don’t eat, how is that inhumane? Darwin claimed “survival of the fittest.” Why is one life more valuable than another? It isn’t. The dead still have value and their death deserves justice. Why do we need to provide respect for life to the human who has not respected anyone else’s
The use of the death penalty shows us that revenge is honored in our society. The cost of incarcerating an offender for their lifetime is much less than the cost of executing that same offender. In spite of the lower cost to imprison, we continue to execute offenders. To me, this mindset shows a system that considers the death of another to be a victory.
People often get caught up in the idea of capital punishment and what it means to others. For some individuals, it is a good feeling to see others suffer for their crimes. Meanwhile, others view the consequences as quite horrendous. I believe if an individual commits a serious crime, he or she should prepare to suffer the consequences. So strong is the desire to make others suffer for their crimes, we loose sight of what is right and wrong.
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”.
In 1842 a tragedy occurred when a ship struck an iceberg and more than thirty passengers piled onto a rescue boat that was meant to hold a maximum of seven people. As a storm became evident and water rushed into the lifeboat, it was clear that in order for anyone to survive the load would need to be lightened. The commanding captain suggested that some people would need to be thrown overboard in order for anyone to survive. There was a great argument on the boat between the captain and the passengers who opposed his decision. Some suggested that the weakest should be drowned, as miles of rowing the lifeboat would take toll on even the strongest. This reasoning would also make it absurd to draw names of who should be thrown over. Others suggested that if they all stayed onboard no one would be responsible for the deaths, although the captain argued he would be guilty if those who he could have saved perished in the process. Alternatively the captain decided that the weakest would be sacrificed in order to save the few left on the lifeboat. Days later the survivors were rescued and the captain was put on trial for his virtues.
Use of the Death Penalty is inhumane. Most Americans view the death penalty as taking a life for taking a life. Lauri Friedman quotes Pat Bane when he states, “In the aftermath of a murder, a family has two things to deal with-a crime and a death. The death pen...
Above all else, capital punishment should be morally justified in extreme situations because it will have a deterrent effect. Many criminals seem to be threatened more by the thought of death rather than a long-term prison sentence. If a criminal is sentenced to twenty-five years in prison then he/she knows that all the necessities needed to survive for those twenty-five years, including food, water, shelter, and even a possible chance of release will be pro...
What if I told you that everything you did was wrong? Well, C.S. Lewis would probably say that the differences between right and wrong are truly up to the Law of Nature, while Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would most likely bring up the point that only God could judge what is right and wrong. The concept of “right” vs. “wrong” is one that is debated a great deal in literature, particularly Lewis’ Mere Christianity and Dr. King’s Letter from Birmingham Jail. The different perceptions of from where man’s morality stems and what truly defines right and wrong are controlled by a higher power than man.