Death Penalty, Abortion, Basic Rights of Non-humans and Terrorism - Essay Example

Discussion Human mind was always in conflict regarding various issues. Especially regarding ethical issues, hardly has human mind ever reached to a conclusion. To our surprise such conflicts has been the source of a number of intellectual disciplines and philosophical discourse. Rather it can be said that the source of philosophy in our society lies in the various conflicts, which the human minds have undergone. In this paper we will carry out an extensive discussion about conflicts that exist among the experts regarding a number of ethical issues. Stephen B. Right has said that, death penalty is imposed “not upon those who commit the worst kind of crimes but upon those who have the misfortune of to be assigned the worst lawyers”. (Bedau and Cassell, 2005, p. 209). Bright believes that poor people who are accused of capital crimes are often assisted by lawyers who are not well skilled and hence not in a position to defend his client from the death penalty. In Bright’s opinion money gains a prime importance in the courts of America. In the courts the one who lacks adequate wealth has to go through the ordeal of death penalty because the accused is not able to afford a proper lawyer for the case. The wealthy on the other hand can afford a lawyer who will take their case seriously and help them to achieve desired ends. Not only that Bright has also said that the courts sometimes do not even bother to look into the case carefully if a poor person is involved and gives a judgment of death penalty to the poor. Therefore according to Bright death penalties take place in America on the basis of wealth and are not based on the merit of the case and so it is better that death penalty is altogether abolished so that the poor do not suffer merely based on the fact that they are poor. (Recinella, 2004, pp.230-235). Louis P. Pojman on the other hand supports death penalty. Pojman believes that those who commit gruesome crimes deserve to get adequate punishment and death is the most proper punishment for them. He has said that it is the duty of the society to give death penalty to those who deserve it. Pojman also holds the opinion that death penalty is required as a deterrence to fight the crimes of the society. He is also well aware of the fact that abolition of death penalty does not help to civilize a society. He says in spite of the fact that in America death penalty is discriminatory in nature it does not mean that the society has to do away with death penalty. He says that if a criminal commits crimes like murder he should certainly receive capital punishment. Pojman holds the opinion that unless we give death as a punishment for murder it will indicate that we approved the murder or we considered the murder as a less serious offense. Thus on all these grounds, Pojman supports death penalty in contrast to Bright. (Pojman and Reiman, n.d, p. 154). Similarly like death penalty there has been also a debate about abortion between Marquis and Steinbock. Both held complete different opinions regarding the issue. Don Marquis opines that abortion is a seriously wrong phenomenon. He feels that all the anti abortion arguments are actually fitting ones. The arguments say that fetuses have the right to life as all other humans have and therefore it is immoral to carry out abortion on the ground that snatches the right of a human life to live. The fact that fetuses are nothing but humans makes the argument against abortion absolutely apt. (Landau, p. 439). Marquis says that abortion should be avoided because it brings an end to innocent lives. Thus basing on the two arguments which are given namely, the biological argument of being person and being alive and the moral argument which asserts the right to life Marquis argues that abortion cannot be supported. (Steinbock, 2007, p. 396). Steinbock contradicting the views of Marquis has asserted the fact that abortion is just. He feels that the embryos do not yet develop sentience nor they do have the neural capacity, which develops consciousness. Therefore those who say that abortion cannot be carried out because abortion involves killing of a human beings is not adequate enough to criticize the concept of abortion. Embryos he feels do not have any characteristic of the human beings and it is useless to say that they are full-fledged human beings and hence cannot be killed. It has been argued by Steinbock that only if a being has the capacity to feel pain then only comes in the question of not inflicting pain to that particular being. Moreover it is only sentient beings that have the capacity to feel pain and embryos are not sentient beings and as a result there is no moral hindrance to abortion. (Lauritzen, 2001, p.23) The issue of basic human rights to non-humans has gained enough importance among many eminent personalities like Posner and Singer and we will find that both of them hold complete different opinions about the issue. Richard A. Posner is of the opinion that basic rights should be bestowed only upon those who have the attribute of personhood. He had opposed the basic rights to non-humans on the ground that human beings are certainly superior to animals. Moreover the non-human animals are devoid of any kind of rationality and sense of justice and therefore it is obvious that they should be denied the basic rights which are bestowed to human beings. Posner said that he supported the pragmatic approach of animals compared to the philosophical approach and hence did not consider morality. It can be felt at this juncture, that Posner resorts to the Darwinian theory which talks about the survival of the fittest and as Posner believes that human beings are more worthy beings than the animals it is obvious the animals will be denied the basic rights. (Sunstein and Nussbaum, 2005, p.85). Singer on the other hand has said that discrimination on the basis of species membership should be discarded based on the principle of egalitarianism. The belief that human beings are the most important moral beings should also be rejected. He was also of the opinion that discrimination on the basis of unequal mental level should also be disregarded because if we consider that it becomes eminent that we should carry out discrimination even among human beings that is those human beings who are more advanced should receive more opportunities and vice versa. Moreover he has also said that human beings should not dominate animals on the ground that animals are also sentient beings. Taking cue from the argument that basic rights are granted to human beings irrespective of their cognitive capacities the animals should also be bestowed with basic rights. (Singer, 2006, pp.64-65) The issue of terrorism is no exception. It has also been approached from various angles that is persons like Coady has opposed it but Gabriel has found nothing wrong in the act of terrorism. Regarding terrorism Coady goes on to say that the idea that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter is very much misleading. He holds the opinion that terrorism certainly involves killing of innocent lives. He in fact condemns the concept of terrorism on all grounds.  Coady has condemned terrorism on the ground that it kills innocent civilians and spreads fear among the people. Terrorism is morally wrong and hence it is objectionable says Coady. It is a violent way to attack the innocent people. Terrorism he says has no purpose it is a random outbreak and hence it is necessarily an immoral act. (Meggle, 2005, pp. 135-138). Gabriel Palmer-Fernandez on the other hand contradicts Coady on the issue of terrorism. He has said that Coady is of the opinion that terrorism involves attack on innocent civilians, but the present day terrorism does not hold true such a definition. This is because modern day terrorism involves attack not only on persons but also on properties. Moreover Gabriel says that sometimes morality demands too much and it becomes necessary to go against the apparently believed morality. So at times it becomes almost necessary to resort to terrorism because that helps to bring a change in the defective system. He says that being guided by the principle of morality, which says that no innocent should be killed, if we keep away from protests, it is certain that we will allow the perpetrators of gruesome crimes to exist in the society. Thus Gabriel believes that at times it becomes absolute necessary to adopt terror means. (Fernandez, 2005, pp. 22-28). The paper has carried out discussion on issues like death penalty, abortion, basic rights of non-humans and terrorism. We have looked into a number of opposing opinions regarding these issues. It is true that the discussion has not provided a particular moral path, which we ought to take, but at the same time we have received adequate guidelines regarding all the issues, which were under consideration. Thus we can say that this paper will help us to determine a philosophical standpoint of our own. In fact it can be said that it will nurture our beliefs and thoughts to a large extent.  References 1. Bedau H and Cassell P. (2005). Debating the death penalty: should America have capital punishment? : the experts on both sides make their best case. USA: Oxford University Press. 2. Fernandez G. (September, 2005). “Terrorism, Innocence and Justice”. Philosophy and Public Policy Quarterly.  The Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy: University of Maryland. 3. Landau R. (2007). Ethical theory: an anthology. New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell. 4. Lauritzen P. (2001). Cloning and the future of human embryo research. USA: Oxford University Press. 5. Meggle G. (2005). Ethics of terrorism & counter-terrorism. New Jersey: Ontos verlag. 6. Pojman L and Reiman J. (n.d). The Death Penalty For and Against. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. 7. Recinella D. (2004). The biblical truth about Americas death penalty. New Hampshire:  UPNE. 8. Singer P. (2006). In defense of animals: the second wave. New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell. 9. Steinbock B. (2007). The Oxford handbook of bioethics. USA: Oxford University Press. 10. Sunstein C and Nussbaum M. (2005). Animal rights: current debates and new directions. USA: Oxford University Press. Read More