HU Psychological Egoism Patientce While Teaching Research

User Generated

Tbbqfghqrag123

Humanities

Harvard University

Description

Psychological Egoism

Essay (3) Questions

20% of final grade

3-5 pages (double spaced, one inch margins, size 12 font)

Please answer all parts of one of the following essay questions:

(1) What is Igor Primoratz’s main argument in support of the death penalty? In your view, what is the strongest objection to his position? Is the objection decisive? Explain and defend your answer.

(2) Alastair Norcross argues that current practices of factory farming are deeply immoral. In his view, human beings who eat meat produced in factory farms are fully blameworthy for their indulgence. What is his argument? In your view, do his reasons against eating meat produced in factory farms extend to eating meat that is not produced in factory farms, i.e., meat that is advertised as “cruelty-free”?

(3) It is widely accepted that human beings have a right to control their own bodies and minds. Does it follow from this that a prohibition against recreational drug use is immoral? Should we have the legal right to use drugs such as heroin, marijuana, methamphetamine, and psilocybin to alter our minds and experiences? Explain and defend your answer.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

agag by Agag Aga Submission date: 03-Dec-2021 08:39PM (UTC-0500) Submission ID: 1719988985 File name: Psychological_Egoism.docx (18.73K) Word count: 973 Character count: 4813 1 agag ORIGINALITY REPORT 100 % SIMILARITY INDEX 2% INTERNET SOURCES 1% PUBLICATIONS 100% STUDENT PAPERS PRIMARY SOURCES 1 Submitted to The Hong Kong Polytechnic University Student Paper Exclude quotes Off Exclude bibliography On Exclude matches Off 100% etuetu by Yryry Tjhtjh Submission date: 05-Dec-2021 11:30AM (UTC-0500) Submission ID: 1721043041 File name: Math_Research_Paper.docx (23.18K) Word count: 1650 Character count: 8749 1 2 1 1 1 etuetu ORIGINALITY REPORT 85 1% % SIMILARITY INDEX INTERNET SOURCES 0% PUBLICATIONS 84% STUDENT PAPERS PRIMARY SOURCES 1 Submitted to The Hong Kong Polytechnic University 84% Student Paper 2 1% www.bartleby.com Internet Source Exclude quotes Off Exclude bibliography On Exclude matches Off kkkk by Kkkk Kkkk Submission date: 05-Dec-2021 04:39PM (UTC-0500) Submission ID: 1721260742 File name: Research_Paper.docx (23.14K) Word count: 1420 Character count: 7366 3 4 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 kkkk ORIGINALITY REPORT 30 % SIMILARITY INDEX 1% INTERNET SOURCES 0% 30% PUBLICATIONS STUDENT PAPERS PRIMARY SOURCES 1 Submitted to The Hong Kong Polytechnic University 22% Student Paper 2 Submitted to Kaplan University 6% 3 Submitted to University of Bedfordshire 1% 4 Submitted to American University of Kuwait 1% Student Paper Student Paper Student Paper Exclude quotes Off Exclude bibliography Off Exclude matches Off
Purchase answer to see full attachment
Explanation & Answer:
3 pages
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

View attached explanation and answer. Let me know if you have any questions.

1

Psychological Egoism

Student’s name
Institutional Affiliation
Course
Date

2

1. What is Igor Primoratz’s main argument in support of the death penalty? In your
view, what is the strongest objection to his position? Is the objection decisive? Explain
and defend your answer.
The main point of Igor Primoratz is that there is no equal punishment for murder,
and that is why the death sentence is justifiable in situations of murder. In this sense, he
does not accept the judgments of individual governments, claiming that the death sentence
should be a punishment that is applied worldwide. Although the death penalty is a very
divisive subject, it gets a significant deal of condemnation from parties on all sides of the
political spectrum. According to some, the conduct is ethically acceptable since it is based
on the philosophy of "eye for an eye," however others say that the act is invalid because of
its inherent hypocrisy. With the help of Igor Primoratz's a Life for a Life as well as his
argument in favor of the death sentence, I will try to explain and refute his argument on the
basis that murder should not be justified by murder, and that murder should not be justified
by murder. The basic argument of Igor Primoratz is that there is no equal punishment for
murder, and that is why the death sentence is justifiable in situations of murder.
He believes that the death sentence should be a worldwide punishment, and he does
not respect the judgments of individual governments in this regard. In his opinion, the death
sentence is the only appropriate punishment for murderers since it is the only way to
effectively punish them for their crimes (Girelli,2019). Even when small theft and shortterm incarceration, for example, get penalties that are in line with what they've done, the
most serious crimes, such as murder, receive punishments that are much less severe than
they should be, according to his argument. Because murderers are given less penalty than
other criminals in terms of deterrence, Primoratz says, it is to some extent an active

3

endorsement of the crime because it is understood that they would not get an equivalent
punishment to the crime done.
For instance, in return for murder, the criminal justice system may impose a life
term in jail, or daily community work for life, or whatever else is deemed appropriate; but
this does not have to be reciprocated with murder. Stephen Nathanson, a colleague and
proponent of proportional retributivism over direct retributivism, would agree with me.
Furthermore, proportional retributivism is morally sound because it allows for different
punishments inside the framework of a crime; for instance, not all murders are accused to
the same extent, and thus, instead of a death sentence for all murders, it considers a lesser
sentence for "lesser" murders. If Primoratz responds, I anticipate him to argue that, as he
has previously said, this leaves murder as the sole crime with insufficient penalty. While
this is undoubtedly true, it does not support the death penalty's morality.
It is my intention in this article to examine the perspective held by Igor Primoratz on the
subject of the death sentence (Purba,2020). In my perspective, the author has convincingly
argued his point that murderers deserve to die as a result of their crimes. The author is in
favor of the death sentence, and his support of the death penalty is based on the principle
of "a life for a life." Death penalty is defended by the author against a number of different
arguments, including the right to life objection, a contradictory objection, a lack of fairness
objection, and an avoidable error objection.
In other circumstances, fines or jail may be used to satisfy the proportionality requirement
between the offence and the penalty. The worth of human life is incomparably little in
comparison to other values, and there is only one penalty for murder, and that punishment
is death. The death of the one who is responsible for the other's death. There are a number

4

of counter-arguments against the use of the death penalty. However, Capital punishment is
unjustified, according to one abolitionist viewpoint. It does so because it breaches the right
to life, which is a basic human right that should be respected by all people. According to
the author, who is not in accord with this reasoning, we can only claim any right if we
respect the rights of others, and that is the only way we can do so. If I interfere with the
rights of others, I forfeit my own rights as a result.
There is another point that has to do with the question of proportionality between
murder as well as capital punishment, that is the reality that the law regards a specific
amount of time to have elapsed between the issuing of a death sentence as well as the
executing of that sentence. This might be for a period of weeks, days, months, and in some
circumstances years, and it could cause the sentenced to suffer from unremitting mental
torment throughout that time. Primoratz contends for the following principle: offenders
ought to be stripped of the same worth that they deny their victims of as a result of their
crimes. As a result, Primoratz thinks that all human beings are endowed with lives of equal
moral value, and that a human life is the most precious item on the planet. He believes that
murderers should be put to death. Due to the fact that justice is about providing individuals
with what they deserve, it implies that justice mandates that murderers be put to death.

5

References
Girelli, G. (2019). The death penalty for drug offences: Global overview 2018.
Purba, N., Tanjung, A. M., Pramono, R., & Purwanto, A. (2020). Death Penalty and Human
Rights in Indonesia. International Journal of Criminology and Sociology, 9, 1356-1362.

6

Please view explanation and answer below.

1

Igor Primoratz’s main argument in support of the death penalty
Student’s name
Institutional Affiliation
Course
Date

2

The death penalty is a hotly debated issue, drawing fire from proponents and
opponents alike. Some say it's ethically acceptable because of the "eye for an eye"
philosophy, while others say the conduct is invalid because of its inherent hypocrisy. On
the basis that murder should not be used to justify murder, I will examine and critique Igor
Primoratz's book A Life for a Life, which advocates the death sentence. Igor Primoratz's
core point is that murder is punishable by death, and hence the death sentence is appropriate
in situations of murder. The book a Life for a Life by Igor Primoratz, which argues in favor
of the death sentence that murder cannot be justified by murder and murder cannot be
forgiven by murder, will be used to help me explain and reject his arguments in favor of
that punishment. Igor Primoratz argues that the death penalty should be used in situations
of capital murder since there is no other punishment that is fair. As a result, the main aim
of this essay is to look at the point of view taken on the issue of capital punishment by Igor
Primoratz (Purba,2020).
The death penalty, he argues, should be a universal punishment, and also he does
not recognize the decisions of individual governments in this field. A murderer should be
sentenced to death because he believes it is the most effective way to punish them for their
conduct (Girelli,2019). That is not to say small crimes like stealing and short-term
incarceration get penalties appropriate to their acts, but murder receives significantly less
severe penalty than it should. A lesser punishment for murderers is an active support of the
crime, according to Primoratz, since it is clear that the crime committed would not justify
an acceptable penalty given its severity.
If a murderer receives a life sentence in prison or community service for the rest of
their lives, this does not have to be returned by another murderer. This allows for varied

3

penalties for different crimes; for example, not all murders are charged to the same amount,
and so, rather than the death penalty for everyone, proportional retributivism contemplates
a lighter term for "lesser" crimes. This leaves murder as the only offense with an inadequate
sentence, which Primoratz is likely to contend if he answers. This is unquestionably true,
but it does not support the morality of the death sentence.
For the most part, I believe the author has successfully established his thesis that
murderers should be sentenced to death as a consequence of their actions. Despite his
opposition to the death penalty, the author believes that "a life for a life" is a concept that
should be followed in all cases. The death penalty is a sensitive issue which generates a
significant deal of criticism from groups on both sides of the debate. Some say that it is
ethically acceptable on the idea of an eye-for-an-eye mentality, while others contend that
its intrinsic hypocrisy renders the act illegitimate. On the basis of Igor Primoratz's thesis
that murder does not justify murder, I want to examine and evaluate his work, a Life for a
Life, in order to both explain and reject it. To paraphrase Igor Primoratz, he argues that the
death penalty is appropriate in cases of murder since no crime carries the same level of
punishment as murder.
If the crime and the punishment are not proportionate, fines or imprisonment may
be employed to meet this condition in other instances. A murderer should be sentenced to
death because he believes it is the most effective way to punish them for their conduct
(Girelli,2019). That is not to say small crimes like stealing and short-term incarceration get
penalties appropriate to their acts, but murder receives significantly less severe penalty than
it should. When a person commits a heinous crime against another human being, the only
punishment that may be applied is death. One who is considered responsible for the death

4

of someone else. Counter-arguments may be presented against the use of the death penalty
in several ways. According to one abolitionist position, however, the death penalty is
unjustifiable. As a consequence, it infringes on the inherent human right to life, which
everyone in the world should uphold. If we don't respect the rights of others, we can't claim
any rights, as per the author, who doesn't agree with this line of reasoning. As a result of
interfering with the rights of others, my own rights are said to have been lost.
As far as proportionality goes, it's crucial to keep in mind that the law gives weight
to the interval between when a death sentence is issued and when it is carried out. There is
a possibility that the condemned person would suffer from relentless mental torture for a
period of weeks, days, months, and in some cases years as a result of the punishment.
Primoratz believes that perpetrators should be deprived of the same value that they deprive
their victims of as a consequence of their crimes, and that this is the correct concept to
follow. For Primoratz, a human life is the most valuable commodity on the globe since all
individuals are born with equal moral worth. Murderers, he argues, should be put to death
via lethal injection. Because justice is concerned with giving people with what they are
entitled to, it follows that murderers must be put to death if they are to be considered
legitimate.

5

References
Girelli, G. (2019). The death penalty for drug offences: Global overview 2018.
Purba, N., Tanjung, A. M., Pramono, R., & Purwanto, A. (2020). Death Penalty and Human
Rights in Indonesia. International Journal of Criminology and Sociology, 9, 1356-1362.

6

Please view explanation and answer below.Use this instead....Yes it was submitted to Honkong University.Am so sorry for everything.
Please view explanation and answer below.

1

How patience can be utilized as the most beneficial skill in a math classroom while teaching
students.
Student’s name
Institutional Affiliation
Course name
Date

2

When it comes to patience, it is described as "the ability to endure or tolerate delay,
difficulties, or pain without becoming angry or disturbed," which is a description that includes
numerous crucial elements. Patience is a talent that may be learned. We can focus on improving
our capacity to be patient and putting in place behaviors that will help us become more patient
people. Maths Teachers need to display patience, especially when dealing with challenging
classroom circumstances. They frequently have to clarify things numerous times and handl...


Anonymous
Just what I was looking for! Super helpful.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags