Doing Ethics
Question One
a) Casually responsible for an event; this is where a person is involved indirectly to the experiences or sufferings of another person(s) without knowing that anything of the sort could happen. For example, the parents are responsible for providing moral guidance to their children. However, when children make mistakes the society passes the blame to parents, meaning that parents have not been taking preventive measures to stop their children from committing undesirable behavior.
b) Morally responsible for an event; this is where a person directly contributes to the experiences of another person(s) by doing an action that he or she knew would lead to those experiences or sufferings. For example, a drunk driver causes the accident and several people are injured. In this case, the driver is the main cause of accident; therefore he is morally responsible for the accident that has happened because he could not make a rational decision. For instance, if a person is playing a game of throwing stones towards a sharp corner, and there happens to be another person appearing from nowhere and is hit by the stone. What if the first person was sent by his or her brother to buy a movie? In this case, by the fact that his or her brother was the one who sent him or her to the shop where he or she was injured, then the second person’s brother is casually responsible for the event that happens to the first person. In the case given above, a person is morally responsible for the event that occurs during his or her stone throwing exercise. This moral responsibility is based on the knowledge that the person knew that he or she was playing the dangerous game towards a corner where there could be people coming by the corner. Judith Jarvis bring that the argument that there is no way an abortion can be permitted. Further she brings the notion that abortion can be permitted she grants that abortion can be immoral. In this contest, she argues that the right of life should outdo the arguments that contradict the way of life. In addition, she gives a detailed notion where people hold a belief that the strength and any implication has the possibility of being false. She further argues that despite the women have partially causally responsible for the womb, although she has voluntarily engaged in sex intercourse have the adequate the knowledge that they may become pregnant thus does not bear being morally responsible towards it. Question Two 2) Retentionists are people who lie on the side of favoring death penalty cases. However, the retentionist differs according to the kind of death penalty imposed to the cases dealt with. The retentionists arguments are thereby classified according to the justice and social responsibility. First on the side of social justice emphasizes that the offender to be rectified by imposing a according to the proportional of the crime he/ she has committed. When the offender is a murder, capital punishment can be used to compensate or to equalize it. On the other hand, social utility is considered to be the only way through which society protection can achieved through which threats can be minimized where the murderers has continued to threat the society. According this argument capital punishment is appropriate since it to scare the people who are tending to commit …show more content…
This argument is not valid and hence unsound. The first two premises are not in agreement with the third premise. The first two are in agreement with heterosexual marriages but the third argument is a contradiction of the first two.
Arguments against same-sex marriage concentrate on four themes:
Same-sex marriage is contrary to custom, tradition, or nature; according to ethics, people in the society have not accepted the marriage of the same sex. It is a distortion of the true meaning or essence of marriage; from the beginning of creation people know that heterosexual is the acceptable type of marriage in the society. It is wrong because homosexuality is wrong; and the consequences of allowing same-sex marriage would be dangerous or harmful. There are certain risks that are being associated with the homosexuality and lesbianism health wise.
Proponents generally argue
Question One
a) Casually responsible for an event; this is where a person is involved indirectly to the experiences or sufferings of another person(s) without knowing that anything of the sort could happen. For example, the parents are responsible for providing moral guidance to their children. However, when children make mistakes the society passes the blame to parents, meaning that parents have not been taking preventive measures to stop their children from committing undesirable behavior.
b) Morally responsible for an event; this is where a person directly contributes to the experiences of another person(s) by doing an action that he or she knew would lead to those experiences or sufferings. For example, a drunk driver causes the accident and several people are injured. In this case, the driver is the main cause of accident; therefore he is morally responsible for the accident that has happened because he could not make a rational decision. For instance, if a person is playing a game of throwing stones towards a sharp corner, and there happens to be another person appearing from nowhere and is hit by the stone. What if the first person was sent by his or her brother to buy a movie? In this case, by the fact that his or her brother was the one who sent him or her to the shop where he or she was injured, then the second person’s brother is casually responsible for the event that happens to the first person. In the case given above, a person is morally responsible for the event that occurs during his or her stone throwing exercise. This moral responsibility is based on the knowledge that the person knew that he or she was playing the dangerous game towards a corner where there could be people coming by the corner. Judith Jarvis bring that the argument that there is no way an abortion can be permitted. Further she brings the notion that abortion can be permitted she grants that abortion can be immoral. In this contest, she argues that the right of life should outdo the arguments that contradict the way of life. In addition, she gives a detailed notion where people hold a belief that the strength and any implication has the possibility of being false. She further argues that despite the women have partially causally responsible for the womb, although she has voluntarily engaged in sex intercourse have the adequate the knowledge that they may become pregnant thus does not bear being morally responsible towards it. Question Two 2) Retentionists are people who lie on the side of favoring death penalty cases. However, the retentionist differs according to the kind of death penalty imposed to the cases dealt with. The retentionists arguments are thereby classified according to the justice and social responsibility. First on the side of social justice emphasizes that the offender to be rectified by imposing a according to the proportional of the crime he/ she has committed. When the offender is a murder, capital punishment can be used to compensate or to equalize it. On the other hand, social utility is considered to be the only way through which society protection can achieved through which threats can be minimized where the murderers has continued to threat the society. According this argument capital punishment is appropriate since it to scare the people who are tending to commit …show more content…
This argument is not valid and hence unsound. The first two premises are not in agreement with the third premise. The first two are in agreement with heterosexual marriages but the third argument is a contradiction of the first two.
Arguments against same-sex marriage concentrate on four themes:
Same-sex marriage is contrary to custom, tradition, or nature; according to ethics, people in the society have not accepted the marriage of the same sex. It is a distortion of the true meaning or essence of marriage; from the beginning of creation people know that heterosexual is the acceptable type of marriage in the society. It is wrong because homosexuality is wrong; and the consequences of allowing same-sex marriage would be dangerous or harmful. There are certain risks that are being associated with the homosexuality and lesbianism health wise.
Proponents generally argue