There is a clear distinction between killing and allowing to die. Killing is a process that involves taking actions that will directly lead to the death of an individual. These steps are often taken with knowledge of their consequences. Allowing to die is a term that can be used to describe a number of scenarios. At the request of a patient, the physician can allow the patient to die due to the dyer medical condition of the patient in question. This situation can also involve the physician not taking any actions that will prevent the death of the patient thus in essence the physician has allowed the patient to die more often than not under their own terms. Callahan is of the opinion that the power of the physician should be used only to cure and to comfort but never to kill. There are situations however where the physician is left powerless in terms of the ability to cure or comfort the patient. The physician should never kill the patient but the patient can request that they be allowed to die as a way of escaping their agony. This falls within the paradigm of the physician comforting the patient. This is because the physician is helping the patient to escape from the torment that is their current medical condition.
The considerations of self-determination and individual wellbeing are sufficient to establish the moral legitimacy of voluntary active euthanasia. This is because the person in the best position to choose the most appropriate course of action regarding the health of a given individual is the individual in question themselves. Thus if a person is in full command of their mental faculties the choice of active euthanasia is a valid precedent to be considered and determined appropriately by the person in question themselves. The legalization of voluntary euthanasia will not affect the confidence of the patients in the physicians. This is because the choice of euthanasia rests entirely with the patient and not the physician.
The retributive rationale for the retention of the death penalty is an invalid principle all together. This is because the people carrying out the penalty are in some way committing murder themselves. This presents a scenario that is infinite and redundant in terms of the murder chan. Justice should not be based on retribution but rather doing the right thing in light of a given situation. If the death penalty is discriminatory in terms of the fact that it is more likely to target blacks and less affluent members of society then this is evidence of the penalty being fundamentally wrong. This is evidence of the death penalty being used to target and eliminate certain members of society. This beats the whole point of justice if the justice in question does not cut across the board. This simply shows that justice and the death penalty are being used to target certain members of society. Given this as the case, the death penalty should be abolished.
Justice Marshal claims that if Americans were fully informed of the death penalty they would consider it morally unacceptable. This is because the American citizens are not fully aware of the implications of the death penalty. Most people have a retributive state of mind and this more often than not tends to cloud their judgment when it comes to the objective analysis of a given scenario. One such scenario is the death penalty and its grave moral implications. The death penalty can therefore be argued as rather unnecessary to promote the goal of deterrence or to further the legitimate notion of retribution.
The principle of an eye for an eye should not be incorporate into the criminal justice system at all. This is because justice is not only about retribution but also about doing the right thing for all involved parties and the society. Nathan son’s appeal to the symbolism of abolishing the death penalty does not provide a compelling argument for abolition. Receptionists could develop a compelling argument because criminals fear the death penalty. This makes them afraid of committing crimes that will lead to them receiving this penalty.
Commonsense is not a compelling basis to conclude that t heath penalty is an effective deterrent. This is because people fully aware of this penalty still commit acts in line with receiving the penalty. The life of a convicted murderer is worth as much as that of a potential murder victim. This is because both are human beings and deserve equal treatment. Both terms on the death penalty should not be endorsed.
If it is established that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent then this favors abolition. This is because it makes the death penalty purposeless. Marquis argument about the wrongness of killing is deficient. This is because all killing is unacceptable irrespective of age. Marquis fails to provide a satisfactory response to the objection that his theory implies that contraception is wrong. If Marquis’s approach is accepted then all abortions are not morally justified.
Thomson attempts to moderate the conservative view on abortion. She however does not succeed in her efforts to moderate the views of conservatives on abortion. She however provides a defensible account of the right to life. Thomson’s moderate view on abortion inclines more towards the liberal direction.
