May 10, 2012
1. In this story about pacifism, Douglas P. Lackey explains the ethics of murder. In a quote, Lackeys makes a very argumentative statement. He states, “If the congress decides to set a speed limit of 55 miles per hour on federal highways, more people will die than if Congress sets the speed limit at 45 miles per hour. In my opinion, this is a very true statement. I think if the congress was to lower the speed limit in many areas, they will be prolonging many lives. Vehicles are dangerous because of their ability to reach high speeds. People get injured in crashes via vehicles almost every day, and yet Congress still fails to resolve this issue by lowering the speed limit. Lackey also develops an important question from this topic. If it is known in advance that civilians will be killed, why is this not murder? He explains his opinion of the topic in a very detailed way. His opinion is that if Congress is aware that more people will die from a high speed limit set on federal highways, then yes it can be considered as murder. Lackeys view of murder is an intentional killing of the innocent. He states, “But why are they not murder, if the civilians are innocent, and if it is known in advance that some civilians will be killed? Isn’t this an intentional killing of the innocent, which is the traditional definition of murder?” My opinion is similar to Lackey’s. I think that in this case, it should be considered murder and actions should be taking quickly and effectively to approach this issue.
2. In “One Way to Understand and Defend Programs of Preferential Treatment”, Richard A. Wasserstrom talks about defending preferential programs. Wasserstrom states, “We are still living in a society in which a person’s race, his or her blackness rather than whiteness, is a socially significant and important category.” Wasserstrom is basically explaining that being accepted in many ways in unjustly determined by race. He makes a...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document