Essay Question One:
In at least 250 words, discuss the questions of when, why, and how much violence or life-harming action may
be a permissible within your selected moral issue with your specific case or scenario explained (real or
imagined). You must also address the question from a moral philosophical view using at least one moral theory
we’ve studied in this course to support the permissible use of violence or life-harming action. You must define
the basic moral principle in the theory you choose and explain how it relates to the permissible use of harmful
action in the case you’re discussing. Select one of the moral theories or moral philosophies of the person
named for your discussion of this question: Utilitarianism, Immanuel Kant, Natural Law, Human Rights, Peter
Singer, Aristotle, Carol Gilligan (feminist ethics of care), and/or a specific Religious based ethic. You may bring
your own personal experience into the essay but be sure you answer the exam questions in what you discuss.
This essay is not just about your opinion on the use of violence but about moral theories that address it.
Context and background for the essay is same definitions and background as given above in preface to the
first essay question.
Essay Question Two:
In at least 250 words, discuss a counter position against the use of morally permissible violence or life-harming
action in which you use a different moral theory from the one used in the pro-position (question 1). You must
define the basic moral principle of the counter moral theory and explain why it rejects any permissible use of
violence or life-harming action in the case you’re discussing (it can be the same issue or a different one from
your first answer). The choices for the moral theory or moral philosopher you will discuss in your contrary
discussion on the question of a permissible moral use of violence or life-harming actions are: Utilitarianism,
Immanuel Kant, Natural Law, Human Rights, Peter Singer, Aristotle, Carol Gilligan (feminist ethics of care),
and/or a specific Religious based ethics. Conclude this discussion with a statement of your own moral view for
or against, about the case you’ve presented regarding a morally permissible use of violence or life-harming
action and explain what is your moral rationale and whether it matches up with one of the moral theories
studied in the course, or if it rests on some other moral position and perspective. And if so, how would you
explain the moral principle behind your position.
Retribution This article centers around the job of Roger Chillingworth, one of the heroes of "Red Letter". Chillingworth was first informed that "White man wearing an unusual jumble of enlightened and savage garments" ("Red letter: 1365 pages"). It keeps on clarifying him as a little elderly person resembling a high IQ and distorted body. Chillingworth has a cool influence in the book. His conduct is practically brutal and you can see that even the name of Chillingworth ought to depict him as a cool heart. Vengeance, "retribution" is basically identified with a kind of dramatization called "repeating retribution". The British writer of the Renaissance period made these accounts at the prime of stage retribution. Albeit doubtful of vengeance, these plays hold the picture of brave Avengers, however get him far from retribution itself. In the awfulness of the agnostic 's Cyrill competition, the apparition of the killed father showed up on the stage and advised his child not to fight back, as God does it for him. On account of this changeless precept, the potential Avengers fundamentally invest energy in different stupendous woodland scenes, trusting that God will prevail as the principle Avengers. The awfulness of vengeance (some of the time called retribution show, retribution dramatization or bleeding misfortune) is a sort of hypothesis whose principle subject is the deadly aftereffect of vengeance and vengeance. American instructor Ashley H. Thorndiek formally reported the awfulness of vengeance in the 1902 article "Connection among Hamlet and contemporary retribution dramatization", recorded the advancement of the hero's vengeance plan, and regularly killers and Avengers Brought about his own demise. This sort previously showed up in the early present day British distributed by Thomas Kid's "Misfortune of Spain" in the last 50% of the sixteenth century. Early works, for example, Jasper Heywood 's Seneca (1560' s), Thomas Norton and Thomas Sackville 's play Gorbuduc (1561) were additionally viewed as a misfortune of vengeance. Different misfortunes of acclaimed retribution incorporate the awfulness of William Shakespeare's Hamlet (1599-1602), Titus Andronics (1588-1593), Thomas Middleton's Avengers (around 1606). In this investigation of retribution and vengeance of Elizabeth 's vengeance, the two plays I see are the "Hamlet" of William Shakespeare and "The Tragedy of Avengers" of Thomas Middleton. After first observing the treatment of the dramatist 's Avengers' character, different characters in the play will deal with the Avengers. Their essential topic is like adhering to the competition, however the two shows present a differentiating picture ... Hamlet - a misfortune of vengeance? Shakespeare's misfortune A puzzling arrangement of contemplations identified with retribution of Hamlet makes this article an intriguing encounter. Ruth Nevo clarifies the vulnerability involved by the hero's most well known monolog in Acts 3 and 4 in retribution. I can not peruse the talk>GET ANSWER