The moral theory Aristotle used to justify slavery is an ancient species of virtue ethics, which says natural slaves are slaves because their souls are incomplete, lacking certain qualities, such as the ability to think properly, and so they needed to have masters to tell them what to do. Clearly, thus, by looking into history and seeing Aristotle’s words (and the similar sentiments of his teacher Plato in Gorgias and his disciple St. Thomas Aquinas in Summa Contra Gentiles), one sees slavery can easily be justified by moral arguments. However, what is at issue is whether any of these arguments are good, and whether they actually reveal something wrong with the underlying theory used to justify slavery; this seems to be the case with a number of modern normative theories, including but not limited to standard versions of utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics, and natural rights theory.
Utilitarianism, a theory of morality and economics pioneered by the intellectuals J.S. Mill and Jeremy Bentham in the 19th century, adheres to a principle stating simply, “the greatest good for the greatest number”. As the theory is described in academia, according to this greatest pleasure principle, there are two ways in which the theory could be used to justify institutional slavery. First, if the moral theorist is simply looking at what is best for the most people, a micro-majority of 51% could justify the enslavement of the other group, the macro-minority, of 49% on the basis that it is maximizing the good of the greatest number of people. Additionally, utilitarianism does not recognize, except indirectly, “how the sum of satisfaction is distributed among individuals” (Rawls, 1971, p. 26). As a result, individual differences are not taken into account, and the theory gives no practical means of measuring what is, by some definition, ...
Cite this document
(“Can Slavery ever be justified on any set of moral principles Essay”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.net/miscellaneous/398076-can-slavery-ever-be-justified-on-any-set-of-moral-principles
(Can Slavery Ever Be Justified on Any Set of Moral Principles Essay)
“Can Slavery Ever Be Justified on Any Set of Moral Principles Essay”, n.d. https://studentshare.net/miscellaneous/398076-can-slavery-ever-be-justified-on-any-set-of-moral-principles.
However, such standards cannot be written to cover every possible situation. Moral principles can differ from and even directly conflict with the moral virtues of a specific practitioner in a specific situation, leading to personal moral dilemmas that can affect treatment decisions.
Moral ethics refers to the concept of associating and identifying with what is right or wrong, just or unjust, or good or bad for a business enterprise depending on the prevailing circumstances and the nature of business the business is involved in at the market (Hume & Sayre-McCord, 2006).
The best example would be the Second World War where the percentage of damage faced by the civilians was accounted at a larger extent. Apart from the holocaust homicide, the most devastating effects on the civilians were caused due to the bombing warfare strategies taken by Britain and Germany.
The survival of society holds primacy over individual freedom and liberty. While it is the responsibility of society to protect and secure its individual members, society's bigger accountability is to secure its own survival over and above anything else, including the individual liberties of its members.
The only ones that we execute in America are the unproblematic ones-with the exemption of Timothy McVeigh, the victims of the death penalty/capital punishment are minorities, the poor and the most defenseless. The same people that are previously talking about revenge in this case are the same people who said that McVeigh is diverse-that approach of "I'm against the death penalty/capital punishment except for.
Terrorism represents a threat for a modern society because it is an attack on legitimate transnational order. Thesis Terrorism cannot be justified because it brings fear and anxiety to peaceful populations, it causes killing and injuries to innocent people and because it involves rise of military and police forces, a threat to global peace and security.
With this definition, it can be said without qualification or exception that terrorism can never be justified. This can be proven with legal arguments and with conceptual agreements on what is war as well as the method for waging war.
Martin & Martin (2003)
& Barsamian) This paper will argue that terrorism is not about who started what or who was to blame for the rise modern terrorism, but that the debate should focus on the fact that using it as a tool is fundamentally wrong, both ethically and morally.
Terrorism, like violence,