0236566
In this squib, I criticize Norcross’ argument for the claim that Fred would still be acting immoral if he hired someone else to torture the puppies. I then argue that the second premise of Norcross’ target argument is false by providing an objection. My objection shows that there is a situation in which the action itself is immoral, but hiring someone to do it is not immoral.
Now I will present Norcross’ target argument in standard form, for the claim that hiring someone else to torture the puppies for Fred is just as immoral as Fred torturing them his self:
1. Torturing puppies is immoral.
2. Hiring people to do something immoral is itself immoral.
3. Therefore, hiring people to torture puppies is immoral.
Norcross’ present this target argument on page 231, section 2, paragraph 1. The idea behind Norcross’ argument is that torturing puppies is immoral and hiring someone else to do it would be just as immoral as Fred torturing the puppies his self. Premise one is supported by the fact that Norcross’ shows that whether Fred tortures the puppies or someone else does, the action itself is immoral. Premise two is supported by Norcross’ because he believes that torturing, in general, is an immoral act whether done by oneself or someone else. Also, if one knows that an act is immoral, one should also understand that hiring someone else to do it does not make it any more moral. An ethical theory shown in Norcross’ target argument is Rule-Utilitarianism. …show more content…
Rule-Utilitarianism is a rule that endorses that each action provides the most happiness for any given party. Rule-Utilitarianism determines the rightness or wrongness of an action by determining if the action to be performed will offer the most happiness with everything considered. Norcross’ target argument is arguing that torturing puppies by oneself is just as immoral as hiring someone else to do it for Fred. The argument concludes by saying that torturing puppies is indeed immoral by oneself but also immoral if one hires someone else to do it. Therefore, we see that Rule Utilitarianism is used to decipher which action is going to produce the most happiness. I will now explain how premise two of Norcross’ target argument is false through an objection that shows a situation, in which, an action is immoral, but hiring someone to do it is not itself immoral. 1. Killing people is immoral. 2. “Hiring” military personal to deploy and kill terrorists’ is not immoral. 3. Therefore, the statement; “hiring people to do something immoral is immoral itself” is false. Premise two of Norcross’ target argument is false because the situation described above allows for an action to be immoral, but not for the hiring to do the action to be immoral. …show more content…
If a random person goes and kills a terrorist we see this action as being immoral. If we “hire” someone from the military to be deployed to kill terrorists, the idea of killing a human is immoral, but the fact that we “hired” them to kill is not seen as immoral. Premise one is supported by common knowledge, as well as factual evidence such as the Declaration of Independence, which states that killing is immoral. Premise two is then supported because we deploy troops all the time to go over and place order back into many countries. Military duties include killing, which we know is immoral, but is not considered immoral through this type of action. In order for my objection to be a valid argument, premise one and premise two must both be
In this squib, I criticize Norcross’ argument for the claim that Fred would still be acting immoral if he hired someone else to torture the puppies. I then argue that the second premise of Norcross’ target argument is false by providing an objection. My objection shows that there is a situation in which the action itself is immoral, but hiring someone to do it is not immoral.
Now I will present Norcross’ target argument in standard form, for the claim that hiring someone else to torture the puppies for Fred is just as immoral as Fred torturing them his self:
1. Torturing puppies is immoral.
2. Hiring people to do something immoral is itself immoral.
3. Therefore, hiring people to torture puppies is immoral.
Norcross’ present this target argument on page 231, section 2, paragraph 1. The idea behind Norcross’ argument is that torturing puppies is immoral and hiring someone else to do it would be just as immoral as Fred torturing the puppies his self. Premise one is supported by the fact that Norcross’ shows that whether Fred tortures the puppies or someone else does, the action itself is immoral. Premise two is supported by Norcross’ because he believes that torturing, in general, is an immoral act whether done by oneself or someone else. Also, if one knows that an act is immoral, one should also understand that hiring someone else to do it does not make it any more moral. An ethical theory shown in Norcross’ target argument is Rule-Utilitarianism. …show more content…
Rule-Utilitarianism is a rule that endorses that each action provides the most happiness for any given party. Rule-Utilitarianism determines the rightness or wrongness of an action by determining if the action to be performed will offer the most happiness with everything considered. Norcross’ target argument is arguing that torturing puppies by oneself is just as immoral as hiring someone else to do it for Fred. The argument concludes by saying that torturing puppies is indeed immoral by oneself but also immoral if one hires someone else to do it. Therefore, we see that Rule Utilitarianism is used to decipher which action is going to produce the most happiness. I will now explain how premise two of Norcross’ target argument is false through an objection that shows a situation, in which, an action is immoral, but hiring someone to do it is not itself immoral. 1. Killing people is immoral. 2. “Hiring” military personal to deploy and kill terrorists’ is not immoral. 3. Therefore, the statement; “hiring people to do something immoral is immoral itself” is false. Premise two of Norcross’ target argument is false because the situation described above allows for an action to be immoral, but not for the hiring to do the action to be immoral. …show more content…
If a random person goes and kills a terrorist we see this action as being immoral. If we “hire” someone from the military to be deployed to kill terrorists, the idea of killing a human is immoral, but the fact that we “hired” them to kill is not seen as immoral. Premise one is supported by common knowledge, as well as factual evidence such as the Declaration of Independence, which states that killing is immoral. Premise two is then supported because we deploy troops all the time to go over and place order back into many countries. Military duties include killing, which we know is immoral, but is not considered immoral through this type of action. In order for my objection to be a valid argument, premise one and premise two must both be