Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Determining the difference between right and wrong
Determining the difference between right and wrong
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Determining the difference between right and wrong
It is okay to kill someone if they are not doing good things. “Never wound a snake; kill it” said by Harriet Tubman. Some reasons are the following, if they are putting other people that are innocent into harm's way. For a person getting raped or harmed then it should be okay to kill that person. Another reason would be if they have already killed someone or if they are planning on doing things to harm many different people and you have proof. Due to the event of it being self defense it should be allowed. If someone is planning on doing harm to another human than they should get punished. They should be allowed to kill someone if they are doing damage to another human. Or even if they are showing signs of harming another person. …show more content…
If someone is putting someone else in danger then they do have a reason to kill someone. Killing another person may be a hard thing to live with but it could be beneficial for many different people. They are illuminating a dangerous threat to society. Self defense is a big thing they are only protecting themselves so that way they do not get hurt. Another reason would be if a person killed someone else then it should be okay to get rid of the threat. There should be a reason for killing them. People should not feel that it is okay to kill someone because, they do not like them. If they kill a person then there is no saying that it would not happen again. So, killing them would be the best option to make sure it does not happen again. There is no way to know for sure if a person is going to do any harm so killing a person with not knowing would be dangerous. It would also be pointless which could cause a lot of problems. Another thing would be to kill someone and have to live with the fact that you killed someone. Like antony in Julius Caesar he was against Brutus killing Caesar because, they did not know if he was actually going to do bad things
It is common sense for a person to know that killing someone is wrong. It is okay in some cases why killing someone is okay though. Case in point, if someone were to kill someone because they felt like it or if they were a thief that's absolutely wrong, they should be put in jail. If someone were to kill a mentally retarded person, for their own good, they should get everybodys “okay” first, to put the out of their misery, by causing trouble and not fitting in.
Self-defense is not something that should be taken lightly. Its dictionary definition is, “the act of defending one's person when physically
Amsterdam also writes that if killing someone is really necessary then there should be a “very good and solid reason with sufficient evidence”. 325).... ... middle of paper ... ... It can be more understandable if it was a “heat of the moment” thing where the guilty party does something impulsive, but if it was the other way around and the guilty person took months and months to plan something, then it would be different.
conclusions and make such a drastic decision as killing that person. Brutus also did not
Brutus was a devious man, even though what he thought he was doing was right. Brutus told his fellow conspirators to kill Caesar “boldly, but not angerly.”(3.1.256-257) Brutus was one of Caesars right hand men, and yet Brutus kills his own friend. When Antony asks to speak at Caesars funeral, Cassius says no, but Brutus tell him that Antony will speak, but only what Brutus tells him to say. Brutus also embraces the fact that he just killed his friend, and also tells the senators who had just witnessed it to not be afraid, but to stay because ambition has paid its debt.
Is killing someone ok? No. Is saving a life ok? Yes. Is defending your life ok?
I argue that it is in fact morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of many, I say this because the survival of the human race is now, and has always been the purpose of mankind on earth, and morality itself is constructed around achieving that goal. Human philosophy is always centered around the survival and happiness of humanity. Even religious philosophy is centered around those eventual goals. Arguments arise in the approach to achieving the goal, not the stated goal of happiness and survival of our species itself.
isn’t an ornate silver tea set that requires careful polishing, it probably needs to be
...ect acted in self-defense when the victim is dead which I agree with. I feel we should have the right to protect ourselves if the circumstance should arise, but the law needs to be written better. There needs to be a way to hold those who are just killing to kill accountable instead of letting them get away with it because they are claiming “self-defense.”
It is morally justified to kill criminals who have lost their right to life and whom we have a right to kill.
Have you ever wondered how some athletes have gotten so good at a certain sport? Have you ever thought about what they did in order for them to get this good? For some the answer is simple; workout and train. But for others the answer is different; the use of performance enhancing drugs such as steroids. There are some people that argue that steroids should be legalized and allowed in professional sports. Other people argue that steroids should not be allowed. Today I am going to state my opinion and justify my reason. Steroids should not be allowed in professional sports because it can be very dangerous to the athlete’s health, it is a way to gain and un-fair advantage and it can be dangerous in both social and physical aspects.
It is unnerving to think that everyday some of the most unspeakable murders and killings take place just under the noses of the authorities and normal people. The killers responsible for these crimes are threats to society and deserve capital punishment. The death penalty is an acceptable and fair method of punishment because it serves justice, provides victim’s families with closure, and increases safety.
Many people feel that all murder is immoral, although murder isn’t all bad. Murder is sometime needed to stop others from harming themselves, loved ones, or the people around them. According to www.debate.org Generally, killing another human person is morally acceptable in the name of justice ie an eye for an eye. Sometimes killing is done with the justification that it is preemptive, that is to say it is OK, with reasonable certainty, that the other will kill you if you don't act first, or, more obviously, to take the life of someone who has unjustifiably "murdered" another. So, murder is killing without justification while killing is simply with reasonable justification.
Have you ever woken up in the morning and felt like not going to the college the whole day? Of course you have. You think of skipping all the classes, but then you contemplate on the consequences of the choice. The attendance will suffer. You’d miss out on that important question or in some people’s case you’d miss out on the exam. You vote against it and go. Now in the above case you had a choice of whether to go to the classes or not, and you chose to go. That decision may prove to be fruitful or a rather disastrous one, but whatever it may be you have to deal with the consequences that come with it. We make countless decisions every day, every moment and once a choice has been made, the actions play out, and the consequence is delivered. We have to live with those consequences. Our choices and decisions guide our lives and build our futures. Whether people notice it or not, the choices we make today affect our tomorrow.
Many don’t realize that the road to success isn’t so much a road as it is a winding,