Defending Against Capital Punishment

Capital punishment is a practice where the state punishes serious crimes by imposing death. This practice has been around for many years but has been controversial for at least the last hundred years. Its use is vehemently opposed by many who argue it violates human rights and offends justice. It is argued that capital punishment does not deter crime, a key goal of law enforcement. The United States currently has the highest rate of executions globally, with only 1% of countries experiencing more than 500 executions per year and 16% having less than ten executions per year. Despite this, people are still executed in some countries with no laws prohibiting certain crimes. The purpose of this article is to discuss what detailed information of the metaethical theory on Virtue Ethics about “Capital Punishment into ethics” and the applied ethical issues on Divine Command Theory and the alternative form of punishment to it replace according to the “Law and the Chapter of God.”

Metaethical theory on virtual ethics

Virtue Ethics is a classically inspired moral theory that takes the cultivation of character as its fundamental concern. Virtue Ethics bases its understanding of morality on the concept of ‘habituation.’ Namely, through repeated effort at maintaining good habits, a person can cultivate the virtues required to live a good life. The virtues emphasized in Virtue Ethics are courage, justice, wisdom, temperance, moderation, and generosity. [1]The person’s moral character is thus deemed central in applying virtue ethics principles to ethical dilemmas.

In its simplest form, virtue ethicists believe one must follow virtue not to do wrong and be punished by God for doing evil. However, more complex forms of the theory contend that a virtuous life will pay off. In the end, moral actions will lead to good things happening to you in this life and future lives.

Aristotle, Plato’s most famous student, diverges from his teacher’s view of Virtue Ethics. Aristotle claims that at least some judgments about virtue can be validated independently of any appeal to decisions about the rightness of actions. Atheists have criticized virtue ethics over its dependence on theism, or to say whether or not something is virtuous, one must appeal to God’s nature.

Aristotle offers the following argument against attributing inconsistent claims to Socrates. First, we need to settle whether Socrates ever attributed conflicting claims to anyone. If he did not, there is no reason to think that he ascribed conflicting claims to himself, and so we can suppose that he was consistent in his attributions of inconsistency to others. Second, we need to establish whether or not Socrates would have been disinclined to attribute consistently inconsistent beliefs about a single issue to himself. [2] My opinion is that because Aristotle’s argument about consistency rests on the assumption that there are no necessary reasons for human inconsistency, it seems reasonable to conclude that he could not have been a proponent of attributing inconsistently false beliefs about a single subject matter. Consequently, if Aristotle’s argument fails, it cannot be validly extended to infer that Aristotle consumed inconsistently wrong thoughts about a single subject matter.

It would be absurd for a virtue theorist to say that a virtuous person will consistently choose the most virtuous option. There may well be occasions when the most ethical action is to sacrifice oneself for others and do something very nasty. [3] A person can be viciously selfish in some situations. Still, the natural attribute of being virtuous does not make you always morally sound. However, about the Lawbook, “God-created people are capable of acknowledging fundamental ethical truths.”

A metaethical theory on moral right and wrong is distinguishable mainly by its approach to describe what is meant by ethical terms in use. Another point of distinction among the various theories revolves around attempts to try and provide codes of behavior that will guide the decision-making process. These theories have been criticized for applying their concepts in real-world applications, even though they are based on generally acceptable ethical concepts. Virtual ethics deals with business ethics, medical ethics, and computer science ethics.

Virtual moral cognition of humans and machines is presented as a comparatively new field of research in applied ethics and artificial intelligence. Metaethical theory on virtual ethics explains social constructivism as a more accurate approach to understanding the ethical value judgments in virtual society than metaethical realism. The philosophical discussion includes the concepts of sharing and perspective from post-socialist