Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
To the terrorist in the act his or her life has no value. From their stand point the plane had to crash in a populated place causing maximum damage and consequently chaos. The passengers of the plane have a right to travel safe and be considered in an action that would take their lives and if an alternate was available to destroy the terrorists but save their lives that would be the best alternative. However such an alternative is ruled out in this case. The second is to shoot down the plane, thus killing the passengers, terrorists and seeing to it that the plane crashed with minimal damage to the city below. In other words protect the key installations that the terrorists tried to destroy with the act.
The questions then are threefold: 1. Does taking actions like shooting down...
Will such a policy deter the terrorist from using the same methods in future and what are the probabilities? 3. Is the shooting down of a plane killing all aboard justified over the probable loss that may occur if it crashed where it was determined by the hijacker?
The first question is from the utilitarian concept of 'greater good' agreeable. Shooting down of the plane in a sparsely populated or not populated area, even though it is a great tragedy of the crew and the passengers, saving the cities on the ground are beneficial. But again the chance of such a location is remote because the terrorists are aware of
However, whereas the strict rule utilitarian global conservationist would prohibit jet travel completely, the act utilitarian would certainly consider the corresponding purpose or value of any use of jet power. The act utilitarian would weigh the respective concerns and determine whether or not the proposed benefit or the total amount of "good" associated with the act outweighs the admitted cost in additional damage to the global environment. That analysis
not committed a crime-- an innocent person. Similarly, it might happen. that the general welfare is promoted by punishing people excessively -- a greater punishment might have a greater deterrent effect. But both of these are, on their face,.violations of justice, which Retributivism would never allow." (Rachels, 135) The danger presented here is one which threatens under any condition of ethical diversion. In the case of lying, there is an
stem cell research has been controversial for years. What are stem cells and why do they entail so much interest? Stem cells may be derived from embryonic, fetal, or adult cells and tissues. Potentially, the embryonic stem cells can serve as the machinery to repair, regenerate, and/or replace tissues and organs. In other words, they could prove invaluable in eradicating all illnesses and incurable conditions. Following an ethical perspective,
Utilitarian and Deontological Considerations Today, many places of work require their employees to adhere to a prescribed dress code. In basic terms, a dress code is essentially a guide on what employees should or should not wear to work. In this text, I concern myself with utilitarian and deontological considerations in relation to dress code regulations in the workplace. Workplace Dress Code Regulations: Utilitarian and Deontological Considerations In an attempt to design an
Utilitarian Abortion Considerations: The utilitarian perspective applied to the abortion issue would focus on whether permitting or prohibiting elective abortion would contribute more positively the interests of society (Mill, 2003 p160). The principal difference between the utilitarian and deontological perspectives is that utilitarianism is wholly unconcerned with the underlying motivation for decisions. Whereas deontological formalism values the state of mind of the individual, utilitarianism focuses on the ultimate consequences of the act,
J. Simpson or John Gotti. In both cases, the defendants are entitled to the presumption of innocence only in court; but there is no such "presumption" in the intellectual "court" of one's mind. A lawyer with integrity would refuse to represent any defendant he believed was probably guilty of horrendous crimes and simply let that defendant be represented by a court-appointed attorney who is obligated by law to represent any defendant