Is there such a thing as justified killing? Many would argue that the killing of another individual is by far one of the worse crimes that can be committed. Though under certain circumstances such as capital punishment, or to kill in self-defense, justified killing is okay. These options are only acceptable if there is no viable alternative to doing so. Everyone has the right to live, and once someone decides to kill another individual then they should lose that right.
They don’t deserve to have the right of life if they want to take the life of an innocent person. Many believe that it is not right to kill someone, but if you are protecting yourself or someone else in need of protection then it is okay, thus making the killers actions acceptable. However, I personally believe that there are better alternatives than death to resolving conflicts. Self-defense from another person is generally accepted as legal justification for killing in situations that would otherwise have been murder.
One prime example would be the Trayvon Martin court case that occurred in Florida, June of 2013. Trayvon Martin, a seven-teen year old African American male, was shot dead by neighborhood watchman, George Zimmerman. Police did not arrest Zimmerman after he claimed he acted in self-defense. Florida has a law called “Stand Your Ground” which allows people to kill if they believe their own life is at risk. When Zimmerman was questioned regarding his actions in the situation, he simply stated that he felt threatened by the teen.
The Term Paper on Revenge Kill Killing Justice Eye
THEME: Vigilante Justice 1. 0 HYPOTHESIS Movies involving violent crime often position the viewer to sympathise with the victim who enacts the revenge by killing, thus establishing the premise that revenge killing is justified. 2. 0 SYNOPSIS 2. 1 The way society views vigilante justice and the ideology that it is acceptable are the primary issues in three of the following American films, A Time To ...
With the “Stand Your Ground” law in place, George Zimmerman reasoning for the killing withstood in court, allowing him to walk away a free man. Though this may seem like a case of self-defense, both Legal documents and police records show that Zimmerman made a call from inside his car informing authorities of his suspicions regarding the teenager. He was instructed to remain in his car, but he did not obey these instructions. Zimmerman proceeded to leave his vehicle and follow the teenager sparking an altercation between the two.
Rather than killing the teenager, there could have been an alternative to how the situation ended. George Zimmerman could have waited in his car for police to arrive and take control of the situation, in turn allowing both individuals involved to walk away alive. According to some, the death penalty is another form of killing that can be justified. Some individuals argue that we pay taxes and a percentage of what we pay contributes to prisoner’s food, education and such. Why would we want to be paying for someone who murdered several people or raped several individuals?
We wouldn’t want our taxes going towards keeping them alive when we cannot guarantee they will not be a repetitive offender. Being that there is no other way to prevent them from committing these horrific crimes again, the death penalty is the only option. The world would be a better place if the people that commit severe crimes are penalized for their actions with death. Conversely, I believe that sentencing a criminal to life in prison is just as effective as the death penalty.
If a criminal were to spend life in prison they would be incapable of harming others within society because they would only be able to interact with other inmates. Sentencing a criminal to life in prison is the better alternative because though we are sacrificing a small portion of taxes to inmates, we are also avoiding use of the death penalty and protecting the innocent at the same time. Unfortunately, molestation and rape are crimes that commonly occur in society today. Situations like this often have an end result of the victim getting pregnant.
The Research paper on Capital Punishmen Death Punishment Penalty
Against Capital Punishment Against Against Capital Punishment Essay, Research Paper Against Capital Punishment At 8: 00 p. m. it was nearing the end of John Evans last day on death row. He had spent most of the day with his minister and family, praying and talking of what was to come. At 8: 20 he was walked from his cell down to the long hall to the execution room and strapped in the electric ...
It is situations like this and it’s circumstances that would cause many to approve abortion. They would argue that having a child is an important lifelong decision that requires consideration, preparation, and planning. If an individual is the victim of a molestation or rape incident that resulted in a pregnancy, chances are they are not equipped to provide for the child financially or emotionally, making abortion the smarter decision. What many fail to recognize is that abortion is not the only answer. Adoption is an alternative for unexpected pregnancies.
Instead of having the option to abort, women should give their unwanted babies to those who cannot conceive. There are millions of couples who are waiting to adopt a child. If more women would choose adoption over abortion then they would not only be saving the life of a human being, but would be giving up the responsibilities that come with having a baby and the adoptive parents would finally have a child that they can love and care for. If one purposely kills or murders someone, they should get the right punishment, be put in jail but never should they receive the death penalty.
We get taught about self-defense and there are classes that people can take to protect themselves, but those classes do not tell you to kill someone, they just teach you the correct and an effective way to protect yourself. In my opinion killing someone is one hundred percent wrong. Killing of another individual for revenge, to eliminate competition, to save one self or simply to feed ones psychotic compulsions is morally wrong because it is an action that originates from ones greed, anger or lust to better society.
All of which are characteristics associated with negative results. Some Philosophers have concurred that this concept of justified killing is incorrect. They have defended the idea that the killing of an individual is morally wrong. Immanuel Kant is one of many philosophers who believed that certain types of actions including murder, theft, and lying are absolutely prohibited. Even in cases where the action would bring about more happiness then pain. According to Kant the ultimate end of the situation is not what matters most and what classifies something to be good or bad.
The Essay on Kants Categorical Imperative
... 1700’s. Kant taught that an action could only count as the action of a good will if it satisfied the test of the Categorical Imperative. The categorical imperative ... in response to this some people may say a prime strength of Kant’s theory is that Kant has a great respect for ... being applicable to all sta? ons is allowing for all people from all backgrounds and circumstances to understand as long as ...
Kant believed that the rightness or wrongness of an action is not determined based on the consequences of a situation, but on ones intentions. A reason why Kant is not concerned with consequences can be seen through the current situation, Imagine that two people are out drinking at a bar late one night, and each of them decides to drive home intoxicated. They drive in different directions through the middle of nowhere. One of them encounters no one on the road, and so gets home without an incident occurring. The other individual, who is also drunk is not so lucky and encounters someone walking and kills the pedestrian with the car.
Kant would argue that based on these actions both drunks are equally wrong. The fact that one person got lucky does not make them any better than the other. After all, they both made the same choices, and nothing within either one’s control had anything to do with the difference in the outcome of their actions. The same reasoning applies to people who act for the right reasons. If both people act for the right reasons, then both are morally worthy, even if the actions of one of them happen to lead to bad consequences.
Metaphysics is the study of concepts that relate to moral or physical experience of a human being. People generally assume that moral principles must apply to all rational things, at all places and all times. Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals by Immanuel Kant is a fantastic piece of literature that explain how certain actions such as murder, theft, and lying do not pass the Categorical Imperative test. Immanuel Kant used the Categorical Imperative test to judge if something was either right or wrong.
The Categorical Imperative test is a formal procedure to evaluate any action which might be morally relevant. It provides a way for us to evaluate moral actions and make moral judgments. To illustrate this idea, Kant categorized this theory into two parts, Categorical Imperative and Hypothetical Imperative. Categorical Imperative is to act in the sake of duty only. Whereas they Hypothetical Imperative is acting in order to receive some kind of reward. In order for something to be Categorical Imperative the command or action must be something everyone can do without causing corruption to society.
The Term Paper on Action Done Duty Moral Good
... was hiding. Kants views are referred to as The Categorical Imperative. This was an injunction, to be obeyed as a moral duty, regardless ... variations of the rules. When considering the universalization of a moral action Kant doesnt take into account the various temperaments and situations ... his argument. He has provided a test for morals but never defined what a moral is. Therefore how can we have ...
If a command or action cannot be performed by numerous individuals without causing disruption to society, it is considered to be Hypothetical Imperative. Within his book Immanuel Kant gives for examples of actions that do not pass the Categorical Imperative test. The first being lying, picture a man who barrows money from a friend knowing that he cannot pay it back despite promising so. Lying would not pass the Categorical Imperative test because if everyone did this it would make the idea of promises worthless. Another example given is
