How does Sinnott-Armstrong reply to Rodin’s claim that consequentialism is useless in addressing preventive war?

/in /by

 

Reflection 1

Write a short reflection statement (350-500 words). Use complete sentences and correct academic writing to complete this assignment.

Respond in writing to these items:

1. What are the two messages that would be sent by abolishing the death penalty according to Nathanson? How does he reply to the objection that murderers forfeit their right to be respected as human beings? Do you agree with his argument? Why or why not?

2. Why is deterrence not a decisive factor in the debate about the morality of the death penalty according to van den Haag? Explain your answers. Do you agree with his argument? Why or why not?

3. Why is “an eye for an eye” an attractive view according to Nathanson? What are the two main problems he raises for this view, and what are the possible replies an advocate of such a view might make?

Reflection 2

Write a short reflection statement (350-500 words). Use complete sentences and correct academic writing to complete this assignment.

Respond in writing to these items:

1. How does Sinnott-Armstrong reply to Rodin’s claim that consequentialism is useless in addressing preventive war? Do you agree? Why or why not?

2. Walzer examines excuses for terrorism while granting that terrorism cannot be morally justified. What is the distinction between a justification and an excuse?

3. According to Valls, what are the two difficulties that arise when one is trying to define “terrorism”? What final definition of the term does Valls stipulate that he will use in his arguments?

Reflection 3

Write a short reflection statement (350-500 words). Use complete sentences and correct academic writing to complete this assignment.

Respond in writing to these items:

1. Explain the Libertarian view with respect to whether we have a duty to help others. How does Singer argue that wealthy nations and their interests have caused harm to developing nations and their people?

2. Arthur mentions three ways in which a moral code must be practical. State those three ways. Which of the three do you consider to be the most compelling, and why?

3. How can we treat others as an end in themselves according to O’Neill? In what ways are human beings limited by their finitude?