Moral Responsibility and Capital Punishment: A Compelling Debate

Abstract

Instructor’s Name Narveson and Singer think differently about the concept of moral responsibility and duty. Narveson believes that it is wrong to tax and for people to give money or staff to charity against their will. He believes that helping others is a virtuous act, and none should be forced to be charitable. Helping others should be a little cost to ourselves, and we should do it if we are willing. Singer argues that everyone on the planet does not have equal entitlement to resources, and the wealthy have a moral responsibility to share. Rich nations have a moral responsibility to help third-world countries. Singer believes that we have the power to prevent something terrible from happening since it is our moral duty to do it. Primoratz argues that capital punishment should be equated to an individual's crime. A person should be deprived of what he deprived of others. He supports the death penalty. Primoratz believes that murderers deserve to die. Natherson offers a controversy on the justice of those who commit heinous crimes. Life is sacred, and no human being is justifiable to take another human being's life. It is morally justifiable for the wealthy to help the poor. Singer's argument is relevant following his assertions. Who has the responsibility to help the poor? It is not justifiable for people to live luxurious lives and spend money extravagantly, yet other people are hailing in poverty. Society is morally responsible for the poor. The solution to poverty is helping each other. as humans, our intuition knows what is ethically permissible, and we have to make a difference in people's lives. Just like abortion is a crime, capital punishment for murder is not justifiable. The death penalty...