Question
This assignment is the first step in a three part project. You only need to focus on part one at this point. Each step will build on earlier steps. However, it is not a matter of providing a rough draft of all or even part of the entire project here in week three. That is, further steps might require completely new and original text. At the same time, completing each step will aid you in completing a future step or future steps. And, you should use the same topic in all steps.
First, select a topic of moral controversy, debate, disagreement, and dispute, Examples of such topics are euthanasia, the death penalty, abortion, cloning, etc. You can pick any such topic. It need not be listed here.
Next, detail the positions of each side of the ethical debate. Note at least two moral reasons each side presents to show their view on the topic is correct.
Now, we want to evaluate these positions using the moral theories we studied this week:
- What would an Ethical Egoist say about this topic? What side would the Ethical Egoist take? What would the Ethical Egoist say to justify their moral position? Is there a conflict between loyalty to self and to community relevant to your topic? If so, how so? Note what you feel is the best course of action.
- What would a Social Contract Ethicist say about this topic? What side would the Social Contract Ethicist take? What would the Social Contract Ethicist say to justify their moral position? Does your topic involve a collision between personal obligations and national ones? If so, how so? Note what you feel is the best course of action.
Finally, reference and discuss any professional code of ethics relevant to your topic such as the AMA code for doctors, the ANA code for nurses, or any other pertinent professional code. State whether and how your chosen topic involves any conflicts between professional and familial duties.
Cite the textbook and incorporate outside sources, including citations.
Use at least 4 sources, 3 of the sources must be scholarly articles (journal articles) published after 2018. The fourth source must be the textbook.
Textbook: Rachels, S., & Rachels, J. (2019). The elements of moral philosophy (9th Ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
Solution
The Death Penalty
The death penalty is the execution of violent offenders who has received a death sentence after a conviction for a given crime. However, the death penalty is carried out with the due process of law and cannot be compared to extrajudicial executions carried out without it. However, this punishment is becoming unpopular and has become less of routine in the 21st century (Yelderman et al., 2019). Additionally, the public has varying opinions with regard to supporting or opposing the death penalty. However, civil libertarians and human rights advocates continue to oppose it, claiming it is immoral. Guided by ethical egoism and social contract theory, this paper will discuss the morality of the capital punishment.
At first, proponents of the death penalty defend on the basis that society is morally obligated to protect the welfare and safety of its members. As a result, offenders such as murderers are a threat to the welfare and safety, and the death penalty is a way to ensure that they will not commit their crimes again (Yelderman et al., 2019). Thus, proponents of the death penalty argue that the death penalty help deters violent crime, which benefits society. They contend that it is better to take a gamble and lose the life of an evil person than to let them live and risk innocent people’s lives. Finally, the death penalty is often defended by the argument that justice entails “an eye for an eye” and offenders should receive losses equal to those they imposed on innocent people. Thus as Yelderman et al. (2019) states, proponents of capital punishment believe that it ensures justice for all by infliction death on those who deliberately take other people’s lives.
On the other hand, those who oppose the death penalty argue that society is morally obligated to protect human life and not destroy it. As Bessler (2019) argues, human life has been viewed with great value, and rather than taking it, society should look for a less severe alternative such as a life sentence for punishing offenders. Additionally, they disagree that the death penalty is a practice that deters crime because and unlike other punishment alternatives, there is no evidence that it is effective in deterring violent crime. Furthermore, capital punishment is not necessary for ensuring that justice is served or offenders “get what they deserve” because this does not entail only punishing violent offenders by death. Regardless of whether the practice is punishment, taking life is still viewed as murder by opponents of the death penalty (Bessler, 2019). Also, they state that allowing society to take the lives of certain members regales of their crime highlights that taking life is right and legitimizes it…………for help with this assignment contact us via email Address: consulttutor10@gmail.com