Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - yeqiyang

Pages: [1]
1
General Discussion / Re: Welcome to CreateaForum.com
« on: July 17, 2019, 09:36:19 pm »
Quote from: Lingxiu Ji on July 11, 2019, 08:19:32 pm
“A U.S. tourist, driving through a central American country ruled by a cruel dictator, stops in a village where twenty rebellious peasants are lined up against a wall, facing a firing squad.  The commanding officer approached the tourist and offers to spare nineteen of the rebels if the tourist takes the officer’s revolver and shoots one of the rebels. Compared to the dilemma facing the pilot of the spaceship in “The Cold Equations,” is the tourist’s moral dilemma more, less or equally difficult to resolve morally? Defend your position as you compare the two situations.”

------ p.188 Ethics for Modern Life, Raziel Friquegnon



The question is whether a U.S. tourist will go and execute one of the rebels in a nation of the dictator in Central America in order to save the other nineteen. First, if the tourist is following Divine command. Majority of the Americans are Christians. The Christian religion teaches people that they should not kill people. So if the tourist is strictly following the Divine command, he will not kill the man and save the other 19. However, a single U.S. tourist going to central American, according to my stereotype, is more likely to come from a rather liberal state, and holds liberal, non-religious view when making their act.

If the tourist is a government official or a businessman, he or she might follow the Utilitarianism, believing that he or she should do the best for the greatest number. If he wants to the best for the greatest number of Americans, he will shoot one and save the others. American’s traditional value is liberal and democratic, thus opposing any authoritarian states (with exceptions of the cases that there are great benefits to be gained). A state that is led by a dictator is by nature U.S.’s enemy and assuming the enemy of an enemy is a friend because the tourist doesn’t have enough time to investigate the reason those 20 people are rebelling for, the people rebelling is American’s friends. And if the tourist shoots one of the rebels and saves the other, that means saving 19 allies of America, who might fight for freedom around the world and for American’s interests. However, the tourist needs to take the credibility of the commanding officer in an authoritarian nation. If he shoots the man and the commanding officer ordered his firing squad to keep shooting. That means that he didn’t save anyone, plus that he’s now killed one himself. In this case, the cost outweighs the benefits. He also needs to consider the identity of those twenty rebels. If one of them is the head of the rebel, he should, when following utilitarianism, shoot one of the other to save him.

If the tourist is following Kant’s duty theory. He should not shoot the man and save the others. The act of killing something is not going to pass CI. If killing something is normalized and universalized, then the world will be in a state of suffering, and chaos. So even though the consequence of him or her killing one is good, he can not do that based on his goodwill, under Kant’s duty theory.

I agree with the idea of utilitarian ethics since we have to secure our own lives then we may pursue scoring others' lives. Since we ar asked to shoot some rebellions, those people are dead even we refuse to do so since they have been arrested by the cruel dictator. The only way to pursue the greatest kind is to follow the order of the dictator and manage to acquire his trust. We may rescue others only by following that way. Thus, shooting is not immoral

2
General Discussion / Re: Online Comments (You should have 4 total by the end)
« on: July 17, 2019, 09:29:59 pm »
I agree with the opinion that the right of animal and development of human should be both considered and evaluated. Nowadays, since human may come up with a way to preserve animals' right and get the necessary nutrition from animal at the same time, there could be the coexist of both ideas.

3
General Discussion / Re: Online Comments (You should have 4 total by the end)
« on: July 17, 2019, 09:26:18 pm »
I don't believe that there will be any black market of meat will appear cause meat is such an object could be easily acquired thus will not be any rapid change in the price which will lead to the black market.

4
General Discussion / Re: Welcome to CreateaForum.com
« on: July 17, 2019, 09:23:39 pm »
I agree with this idea of equality with everyone. The value of lives cannot be calculated by the number or age. A elder man has equal weight with 5 young men. Sacrificing one elder for 5 young men is not acceptable.

5
General Discussion / Re: 1st Online Comment (Due 12PM, Saturday, July 6th)
« on: July 12, 2019, 10:52:46 pm »
History has shown that drug prohibition reduces neither use nor abuse. When a rapist is arrested, there are fewer ****. However, after a drug dealer is arrested, it remains unchanged for the supply and demand of the market. The arrest only creates an endless stream of drug entrepreneurs who would like to take the risk to create profits. It costs billions of dollars every year from tax payers but drug become more widely used in these years. By eliminating prohibition of all drugs for adults, we may focus on the crimes or violences in law enforcement which may further establishing appropriate regulations. Such crimes like murder, child abuse and aggravated assault may further controlled and thus our communities will be safer. Non-violent drug use destroy families and with better regulations, drugs will be less accessible for children and safer for adults. Placing drug abuse in the hands of doctors instead of criminal justice system will reduces rates of addiction and deaths. With the money in better purpose, black market and drug cartels will be suppressed rather than benefit. Furthermore, the job opportunity created by drug legalization gives way for potent criminals and drug dealer a way to survive rather than taking risk in committing crimes.

6
General Discussion / Re: 1st Online Comment (Due 12PM, Saturday, July 6th)
« on: July 05, 2019, 10:59:38 pm »
As the response to Van Den Haag’s argument, I contend that death penalty may not deter murder. There is more fearfulness of death penalty than any other sentence. However, for most of the cases, murdering comes out of unreasonable behavior rather than intention. For those cases, no matter what sentence actually lets to the same result because the murderers have never expect the result or they will not commit that. Or, in terms of the intentional killing, like terrorist or like the case of Breivik, their murdering comes out of extreme thought which will not be deterred by any kind of sentence. In other words, what they are aiming at it to die and then they will become martyr. For those extremist, the only possible way is to educate and therefore deters more people to become extremist.
At first, it is questionable that whether the government has the right of sentencing and executing death penalty. It is dangerous hand the right to decide one's life to the government. Nowadays, in majority of the countries, there is at least a certain amount of transparency in the process of sentencing even in the countries which are implementing sharia law. However, what if we are living under WWII? Nazi Germany and imperial Japan are both seemingly civilized and modernized countries, but the government does not obey the minimum extent of human rights. Jews, communist or any kinds of people who fail to meet the requirement of Nazi are put to death. At the time of the election of Hitler, a few people may expect the disastrous outcome of Nazis’ policy. It is the same thing we are facing today. If Donald Trump is given the amount of power that owned by Hitler, there will certainly be disastrous outcomes followed by. The power that decides one’s death is one of the most important but dangerous power held by government right now. A good government may uses this power to do some good, but the bad government may uses it to destroy the whole country. In conclusion, the harmfulness if the government holds the power of death penalty exceeds its benefit. 
For the second point, death penalty may not be recovered. No matter in which country or which jurisdiction, there is a certain possibility that a trial system carries out misjudgment. Any kinds of sentence may be recovered except death penalty.

Pages: [1]