Ethics And Social Issues Of Death Penalty

Ethics and Social Issues

The death penalty has raised different questions in society concerning its illegitimacy as a punishment for capital offences. The primary problem, which remains underlying, is whether our established justice system is out of the desire to rehabilitate or it is out of the desire for retribution. Examination of both sides of this argument, looking deep into the legality and ethics of this kind of punishment for capital offences, more so in the United States, has failed to come up with a clear stand (Eterovich 12). From the arguments I will provide below, my position on this kind of debate is that the death penalty is not the correct form of punishment for anyone in society.

Looking deep into the theory of Aristotle concerning the death penalty in his work of Nicomachean Ethics, permitting the death penalty is totally a disgrace to our society. There is a possibility of exploring various kinds of virtues plus their means, like resentment, temperance, sincerity, and patience, which can all help us make a decision on this kind of punishment. The utilitarian rule, which says killing is wrong no matter the reason for killing can help I such a situation. This still conforms to Aristotle’s idea of the death penalty being a disgrace (Eterovich 12 Death penalty is at any chance wrong by critically analyzing Aristotle’s work on the Virtue of Ethics. It is common in our families that whenever a child does something wrong, we always intervene by lecturing them and, at some point, even spanking them so that they will never forget in the future before they do the same thing again.

It is a common thing that whenever one breaks the law, for example, by cutting into someone’s property and stealing something, then he or she gets caught in the act, he will automatically go to prison. Prison is meant for lawbreakers, and despite the kind of offence committed, lawbreakers are supposed to be the prison. Prison deprives criminals of the right to freedom for a given period, and from this, they learn how being responsible is essential. The Bible is regarded as the reference point for all the laws set, and it is apparent in the bible that no one is entitled to take another’s life. I can, therefore, conclude that a capital offence cannot be justified by making the offenders but instead by giving him or her the corresponding punishment they deserve. God is the only one who can take life, and no human being is entitled to the same.

Abortion has been one of the emerging trends in our modern societies in the recent past. This has led to arguments from raging groups in the community, with the church being on the lookout for this kind of activity. Marquis, in his own belief, tries to make it clear that abortion can be morally right or wrong depending on the surrounding circumstances leading to it happening. Marquis came up with his own decision after a critical analysis of different philosophical arguments put forward by pro-choicers and anti-abortionists. He looked into the symmetrical strengths and arguments from both sides of the cases. Abortion is considered a grave offence in many societies of the world, but in spite of this, it can be right, depending on the factors leading to it.

Marquis says that from the camps, the anti-abortionist convincingly gives typical ideas on the fact that fetuses have no difference from adult human beings and taking out their life at that early stage is of no difference to take the presence of an adult human being. On the other side. The pro-choicers also give convincing arguments demonstrating that fetuses are nowhere near features possessed by adults (Marquis 367). Marquis says that the cases provided by pro-choice are too narrow to help one arrive at a favourable conclusion, whereas the anti-abortionists also provide a broad range of arguments.

Marquis, therefore, argues that both sides are, to some extent, correct or wrong. For instance, a situation where a woman has a fetus is in a critical medical condition, and the only option is to abort the child for her to survive lest they all die. In such a situation, it is undoubtedly that the best option is to give in to the idea of aborting the child (Marquis 367). Another instance is a woman who feels she is not prepared for a baby at the time she conceives; she then decides to abort the baby. In that case, it is morally wrong and should not be encouraged at all. In conclusion, abortion is a two-way, open-ended idea and should be primarily considered an option given the circumstances are worth it.

Work Cited

Eterovich, Francis H. Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics: Commentary and analysis. University Press of America, 1980. Pp 12.

Marquis, Don. “Why abortion is immoral.” Applied Ethics: A Multicultural Approach (2017): Pp 367.