Overall, I am more convinced by Koch’s essay than Bruck’s essay just because it appeals to me on a more emotional level, and causes me to want to keep the death penalty. Although I admire that Bruck tried to appeal to the audience in a more intellectual tone, I still feel that his essay was lacking, and will not adequately convince the reader to vote against the death
Simpler questions would be “Is Dr. Smith’s intentional practise of omitting important information relevant to his client’s treatment ethical?” or “Is Dr. Smith’s failure to report his client’s actions to the authorities morally justifiable?” Both would be good questions, but I believe the question the study guide asks us to consider embrace both of these questions. The possible answers to the question are “yes” or “no”. I will be using rule-based utilitarianism and Kantian deontology to analyse this case study. There is not enough information to consider act-based utilitarianism: Act-based utilitarianism essentially says that one should perform that act which will bring about the greatest amount of good (“happiness”) over bad for everyone affected by the act. Each situation and each person must be assessed on their own merits (Thiroux, 2004, p. 42).
Most agree that gun-related injury or death of innocent citizens should never be tolerated, but there are opinions on the course to take in an effort to discover a solution. This paper will offer problems and solutions associated with past and present efforts to manage the issue of gun-related injuries/death. This paper will also render the discoveries and opinions of the above-mentioned group members as it relates to this controversial topic. Stricter gun-control laws do not help prevent gun-related injuries/deaths One method to prevent gun-related injuries/deaths is to make serious efforts to treat depression, mental health issues, and drug abuse in society. A large number of gun-related injuries/deaths are committed by members of society that have untreated disorders and others that simply neglect firearm safety rules and existing gun-control laws.
However, by presenting both sides of the argument one can understand the reasons why it shouldn’t be read and why it should be read. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, should not be read because of the racist, harsh, and critical language in the book. However, it should be read because it helps teach personal morals and judgments, as well as important themes like friendship or love. You can never “candy-coat” material to protect teens from reading such material. Sooner or later they will have to find out.
Labeling a particular crime as special or different does not deter criminals from their true intention. If we place a "special" label on certain types of murder, rape or vandalism we are not preventing the hate that is the motive for such crimes. This is not the true goal of society. Helen Dodge makes a compelling argument to shun the members of such hateful communities in her article "Special Crimes Need Special Laws", when she says that the public should band together against such forces (Dodge 140). However, even she had to admit that these special laws won't deter the criminals who practice these violent acts.
Thinking about it more, I realized that hate-crimes legislation doesn't aim to punish the actual crime, but rather the motive (or thoughts) behind it. That's smacks of being more than a little Orwellian to me, besides being something that's very difficult to prove. If someone is continually spouting hateful speech, there's a pretty good chance you can figure out that their motive for a crime might be related to that hate. But what about someone who doesn't give any
When sources you find do not have an author that would be the indication that the information is not credible as most credible sites list the author of the facts. Author of credible sources are willing to stand behind their information and in most case will provide their contact information. Be careful with the domain .org, because .org is usually
Why would anyone willingly want to do that to another person? Let alone a government doing it to one of its citizens. Don’t get me wrong now just because I don’t support the death penalty doesn’t mean I lack sympathy for the murder victims or their families. Believe me I do I know what it is like to lose a loved one and I don’t want anyone to have to go through that in life. But I believe murder demonstrates a lack of respect for human life.
She has expressed to me that she plans to kill him before he kills her. One of the rules of having a license in my profession is protecting my patient’s privacy and my license could be revoked if I compromise this rule. Based on the fact that lives are in danger, I would be obligated to report this to the authorities. At this point I wouldn’t care about my career and what would happen to me, but for human life to be preserved is my only objective in this dilemma. 2. Review your answers and consider if you used the same values or if you used different values.
If we judge and label someone by appearance, we probably can’t learn special characteristics about someone because we don’t know about their belief and personality in appearance. Some people just hide their emotion and seldom express themselves by a verbal communication. Therefore, the “Squiggling game” is a good form of communication to allow us to know someone without judgment more. 250 words Additional material: Gordon Allport Prejudice jeopardizes to learn special characteristics about someone. As a result, we should find different ways to reduce prejudice.