Table of Contents
- Question 1: Terrorism
- Buy Ethics paper online
- Question 2: Sanctity of Life vs. Quality of Life
- Question 3: Mill’s Utilitarian Theory of Justice
- Question 4: Martha Nussbaum Is a Sharp Critic of Social Contract Theory
- Question 5: Altruism
- Question 6: Capital Punishment
- Question 7: Kant on Justice
- Question 8: Same-Sex Marriage
- Question 9: Plain Sex
- Question 10: Global Economic Justice
- Related Argumentative essays
Question 1: Terrorism
Terrorism is known as the act of violence used to achieve religious, political or ideological goals. Terrorism has become a serious moral issue across the globe. According to social ethics, terrorist attacks on innocent civilians are wrong and heinous acts. Some of their attacks cause deaths and injuries whereas unintended consequences are often morally justified. The question of whether terrorism can be morally justified is still under discussion. Terrorism is worse than war as its causes are often justified on the grounds of righteousness. Terroristic activities are an absolute violation of human rights. For this reason, adoption and use of terrorist tactics cannot be morally justified. In my view, terrorism is associated with the notion of religious superiority and non-tolerance. The majority of the terroristic activities always revolve around religious ideologies passed on to youths and mostly men through radicalization. Terrorism is a contemporary moral issue as the right answers to the motives behind it have never been adequately provided. In conclusion, terrorism is and cannot be morally or socially justified.
Question 2: Sanctity of Life vs. Quality of Life
The debate over the two phenomena is the most crucial issue that has existed for decades. Some use the utilitarian arguments while others employ the natural law arguments. Natural law argues that one’s life should be preserved as it is holy and provided by God. According to natural law, it is Him who should take away life. It can also be argued that the law would not let the innocent die only because they do not lead a decent of life. The only shortcoming regarding the natural law is that it does not put into consideration the quality of life. One is not permitted to die as a result of the poor quality of life as by so doing; they would be going against the sanctity of life. Contrary to this, utilitarianism argues that humanity is not valuable, and everybody can treat it the way they like. Secondly, it says that one has the right to end their life. Lastly, they argue that ending life eliminates future possibility of pain or pleasure. The major setback associated with it is that it does not take into account the pain caused to those left when one dies (Keyserlingk 100). It does not encourage struggling for better life. In my opinion, the natural law explains the concept of the sanctity of life better.
Limited time Offer
Question 3: Mill’s Utilitarian Theory of Justice
Utilitarians see no significant difference between morality and fairness. They see justice as part of morality only, and they do not see justice as being more preferential than any other ethical concern. Utilitarians think that people should promote goodness, and they further believe that goodness can originate from a single good such as flourishing and desire for satisfaction. The idea of justice links morality to the law, politics and economic distribution. In order to determine the political and economic systems, one must discover them by him/herself by observing the effects they produce. Most utilitarians often advocate for social welfare as everyone’s welfare is related to moral interest and social wellness (Fisk 40). They also support free trade as it can help to reward people for hard work and also encourage people to be more productive. It also affirms that depriving people of freedom tends to cause suffering. Mill argues that justice in workplaces gets lost when workers and business owners engage in class warfare. There must be a way for employees and owners to blend rather than be divided. He also notes that it promotes the equality of income. He contradicts the arguments by saying that the more money one gets, the less the additional money can facilitate one’s well-being. From Mills’ argument, I can derive that justice can be achieved by reducing class gaps and treating others as equals despite hierarchical variations.
Question 4: Martha Nussbaum Is a Sharp Critic of Social Contract Theory
Nussbaum’s main criticism of Rawls is related to what she terms as the postponement of the question of disability. At first, Rawls does not take into account the distinct needs of people with mental and physical challenges, but he does so later at a stage of legislation. Rawls does not include reasons. First and foremost, the index of primary right based on wealth and income cannot measure the well-being of the disabled but only the prosperity of the non-disabled. Rawls emphasizes the use of income and wealth as parameters of revenue and profit. Also, Rawls noted that mental disorders cause further problems. The mental challenge disqualifies people from being citizens since they lack the type of rationality suggested by Rawls. Nussbaum, on the other hand, opposes Rawls’ account based on the fact that it presupposes an unfair treatment of disabled people. She argues that all individuals are interdependent. She concluded by saying that excluding the impaired would also entail the exclusion of the non-disabled in the event that they become dependent on others. In my view, Nussbaum’s claim is justified in contrast to Rawls’ account. The account of excluding the physically and mentally challenged is presumably inhuman. They should be treated as equals in most of the activities that the non-disabled are engaged in (Nussbaum 151).
Benefit from Our Service: Save 25% Along with the first order offer - 15% discount, you save extra 10% since we provide 300 words/page instead of 275 words/page
Question 5: Altruism
According to Wilson, a family is less important since altruism is aimed at protecting social groups regardless of family relations. He argues that competition brings about selfishness, but only when crowd selection becomes crucial, and then the altruism traits of human societies kick in. He noted that humans are the only creatures with the ability to find balance between group and individual selection. The conflicts between different levels usually lead to dramatic events for the human race. It also brings in variation between alliances, wars and love affairs. Based on this argument, altruism is the feeling of being socially biased towards a particular group or individuals regardless of blood relations. It brings about competition as it has emerged to protect the rights of social groups (Wilson 43). Striking a balance the between the two levels, individual and crowd, is challenging to humans and thus altruism can be useful in such an occurrence. Human beings are selfish regarding the success of their counterparts, and this accelerates altruism.
Question 6: Capital Punishment
Bedau argues that capital punishment wastes national resources such as energy and time of courts and the personnel working for them. Secondly, his arguments that capital punishment burdens the system of criminal justice are valid. To stop this from happening, he proposes to use society control of violent crimes. Capital punishment also accelerates brutality and violence instead of solving the social problem. Moreover, he argues that a decent society would not use death penalty to punish criminals. He further notes that killings are dramatic and violent which allows the legality of killing people to solve social problems (Bedau 13). The bloodshed involved in these executions is destructive for the decency of the community, and the benefits of such are only illusionary. From the above argument, it is clear that capital punishment does not stop criminal activity. Also, the capital punishment is a cruel, inhuman and uncivilized practice rendered in relation to human beings. It should therefore be replaced by social practices aimed at combating crime.
Top 10 writers
Your order will be assigned to the most experienced writer in the relevant discipline. The highly demanded expert, one of our top-10 writers with the highest rate among the customers
Question 7: Kant on Justice
Kant’s social justice theory suggests equal punishment for the magnitude of the crime committed. It would be exceedingly unfair to set a standard form of punishment for all criminals. Most of the criminals would be receiving a raw in the event of such a provision. If a murderer and a thief faced similar sentence, the law would be lenient towards the killer while harshly punishing the robber. From his argument, it is clear that Kant supports capital punishment which I highly believe is justifiable. To bring fairness to criminal justice, one should be given a penalty equivalent to the wrong-doing. If one has committed a crime such as murder, he/she should be subjected to a death sentence as it corresponds to the offense committed. Furthermore, small crimes such as gender-based violence should be rectified with community involvement where the wrongdoer would participate in cleaning and psychological therapy to help them improve their behavior (Kant 56). I highly support capital punishment especially for the hard-core criminals as their chances of change are minimal.
VIP support ensures that your enquiries will be answered immediately by our Support Team. Extra attention is guaranteed.
Question 8: Same-Sex Marriage
Sherif Girgis is a Christian, who approaches the issue of gay marriage with a lot of secularism. He argues that marriage, both heterosexual and homosexual, has a kind of inherent nature which is to forge a lasting union between the partners. He refutes the misconception that same-sex marriages do not last long or lack positive environment for bringing up children. Based on this virtue, they cannot be marriages as the sole purpose of a union is to give birth to children. He noted that heterosexual marriages between infertile people were acceptable since marriage should be based on creation (Beckwith 500). It contradicts the arguments in favor of same-sex marriages, whose sole purpose is pleasure. Same-sex marriages do not fulfill the primary resolve of any union which is procreation according to the natural law. For this reason, same-sex marriages should not be legalized as they deviate from the natural law and prime purpose of marriage unions.
Question 9: Plain Sex
Goldman disagrees with publication on sexual morality and thus, intensely defends his liberal position, unlike Roger Scruton. According to Goldman, sexual desire is the urge to get into contact with another person with the sole goal of having sex for the sake of pleasure involved. He notes that sex serves the purpose of expressing love as well as reproduction. Goldman, however, notes that these aspects are extraneous objects to the sexual act as it is. He rejects and scrutinizes the analysis that treats sex essentially as a means of expressing love and personal awareness, and serving reproduction function. On the contrary, Scruton argues that the key goal of sexual activity is erotic love and that people must be properly constituted to experience erotic love. He also argues that jealousy in love is imperfect and that people should strive to eliminate it at all costs. He says that children should be taught chastity values so that they may impede the urge towards sexual activity until they are mature enough to understand what love entails.
Question 10: Global Economic Justice
The wealthier nations do not have a moral obligation to provide any form of resources to the poorer countries. The main reason for my argument is the fact that undeveloped nations have for a long time entirely depended on wealthier nations for food and financial aids. For this reasons, they put little or no effort to improve their financial or food security. The overdependence on more affluent countries needs to be controlled so that the poorer nations can come up with strategies on how to rectify their conditions. The wealthier countries should only subsidize what these nations already have but not solve all of their problems. They should only help the poorer nations solely on humanitarian grounds. Also, it could provide ideas on how the poorer countries can improve their financial state and solve their food security issues instead of giving them financial or food aids in the event of a drought.