Passivity Vs. Deliberate Wrongdoing: A Poisonous Cup Of Coffee

Sahara Lewis
Ms. Stav
Ap Lang & Comp
17 September 2016
Passivity Vs. Deliberate Wrongdoing: A Poisonous Cup of Coffee Argument
In the excerpt, A Poisonous Cup of Coffee, it notes that either Tom or Joe is more wrong than the other by listing the moral dilemma. “Tom puts poison in his wife’s coffee, thereby killing her…Joe’s wife mistakes poison for coffee cream, Joe being the only one who can save her lets her die.” Do you think doing the action or watching the action has a much greater effect? Some people may argue that watching the action is much worse than actually doing the action. While doing the action has a greater effect than watching the action, the rules for murder whether you watched and didn’t do anything or actually did the crime, the law for murder should be enforced.

The opposition to the murder of both Joe and Tom’s wives has several key points.

Many of these key points all in which comes down to the laws being enforced. People who feel that watching the act has a more negative effect than doing the act would argue that Joe’s scenario would cause less jail time because he did not place hands on her. My opinion on the dilemma is that actions speak louder than words. With that being said I feel that Tom’s case has a greater effect than Joe’s because he contributed more in the crime. Statistics shows that a hands-on crime would have more evidence that would help solve the crime.
While those who feel that Joe’s situation has a greater impact than Tom’s, the opposite opponent would have the same opinion that our murder rate needs to decrease. However, just because a person did not lay hands on the victim, it does not excuse them from the consequences. The benefit of the dilemma is that the news is open to the public and murderers are getting off of the streets and creating a more workable society. By this being said, it is a step closer to a safe rule-following

environment.
Law enforcement stretched to an extended limit would be the best solution to prevent crimes. The government could set up a conventional meeting and discuss rules and regulations to best benefit our society. The government can make a law that states, “If not a hands-on but visual crime, their time should be at max five years less than a person who uses a hand-held object or their bare hands.” If poison were used to murder a person as shown in the dilemma, they shall be sentenced to the same amount of time whether action of inaction.”