Nathanson discusses the issue of the death penalty, trying to figure out whether it is appropriate from a strictly moral point of view or not. He reminds of inalienable rights every single human being possesses. He claims that those rights should be respected, and it means that depriving a murderer of his life is not a right thing to do, because it is an obvious disrespect of his rights. Nathanson gives an example of Kant's point of view at the death penalty that fully supports an eye for an eye principle. A person should receive what he gives. Thus, what a person deserves is strongly connected to what he does, including depriving of his life if needed (Kant, 1999). On one side, it looks fair, but from the other one, it means that legal essay justice should perform the same barbaric and inhuman treatment as criminals. In some way, kant's view could be seen as valid and attractive, but Nathanson concludes that it should be rejected by society in terms of its immorality.
For example, it relates to some cases, such as air pollution, drunk driving, and others. Therefore, nathanson have made a conclusion that an eye dubai for an eye principle cannot fully solve the problem of punishment for criminals. Another interesting approach analyzed by nathanson in the excerpt of his book an eye for an eye? Is a principle of proportional punishment. Partly, it could be a relevant substitution for lex talionis. The worse is a crime, the harsher punishment a criminal receives. Nevertheless, this proposal gives no justification for the death penalty. It is a general idea with no particular instructions.
This is what one calls an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth principle. Thus, those who kill should be killed, and those who rape should be raped, etc. Nathanson does not approve the present idea, and gives two major reasons for his disapproval. First and the most important one is that while acting the way criminals do towards their victims, legal justice becomes similar to them. Generally, it is ethically wrong, and breaks the laws of morality, because in case a victim is killed, a criminal should be killed as well. It is not acceptable in society. The second reason lies in obvious difficulties to apply a deserved punishment.
Dignity, essay by nancy Shannon on Prezi
Many of these principles simply describe a general vision of crime punishment, and proposal do not give any specific instructions as to how to handle. Others take a form of strongly pronounced cruelty that is inconsistent with the moral laws, and, therefore, cannot be put to use. The topic of crime punishment has been discussed in various political, ethical and philosophical studies and works. Philosophers, such as Andrew von Hirsch, Immanuel Kant, and others, have presented their ideas on the ways punishment may be performed from the standpoint of philosophy and morals. One of the written works, dedicated to the present issue and worth attention, is a book entitled An eye for an eye?
In his book, he reconsiders the principles of punishment, described by kant and von Hirsch, and argues against them. His understanding of punishment system does writing not follow the classic philosophical principles, because he is sure that those cannot work properly due to a range of reasons. Therefore, he tries to find an alternative that may help society punish criminals wisely and according to the law, ethics and morality. In one of the chapters from his book entitled An eye for an eye?, Stephen Nathanson presents his argument against the classic retributivist principle of punishment, also known as lex talionis. According to this approach, all criminals should be treated the way they have treated their victims.
Yet its rulers still governed over a heterogeneous society and maintained in stitutions that favored the muslims, particularly those of Turkish background, and subordinated Christians and Jews as second-class citizens subject to a range of discriminatory laws and regulations imposed both by the state and. The failure of the Ottoman system to prevent the further decline of the empire led to the overthrow of the government in 1908 by a group of reformists known as the young Turks. Formally organized as the committee of Union and Progress, the young Turks decided to turkify the multiethnic Ottoman society in order to preserve the Ottoman state from further disintegration and to obstruct the national aspirations of the various minorities. Resistance to this measure convinced them that the Christians, and especially the Armenians, could not be assimilated. When World War I broke out in 1914, the young Turks saw it as an opportunity to rid the country of its Armenian population. They also envisioned the simultaneous conquest of an empire in the east, incorporating Turkish-speaking peoples in Iran, russia, and Central Asia.
The defeat of the Ottomans in World War i and the discrediting of the committee of Union and Progress led to the rise of the turkish Nationalists. Their objective was to found a new and independent Turkish state. The nationalists distanced themselves from the Ottoman government and rejected virtually all its policies, with the exception of the policy toward the Armenians. This essay focuses on three aspects of the Armenian genocide that have broader applicability to any study of genocide: (1) Distinctions between massacres and genocide (2) Use of technology in facilitating mass murder (3) The legacy of genocide. Criminal deeds have become a part of human life many centuries ago. They are committed in the name of God, love, power, freedom, revenge or resentment. They bring pain and sorrow to the lives of some people, and take away the lives of others. Since the first crime has been committed, and people have realized that it was a form of evil to be fought with, they made thousands of attempts in order to break the vicious circle of ruthless crimes that draws people into the abyss of despair. Thus, there has been established a range of specific principles, or, in other words, logical ideas on the ways of possible punishment for those, who commit offences towards others.
Dignity, of Labor my study
They argue that the interests process of alienation was embedded in the inequalities of the Ottoman system of govemment and that the massacres prepared Ottoman society for genocide. Other scholars point out that the brutalization of disaffected elements by despotic regimes is a practice seen across the world. The gpa repressive measures these govemments use have the limited function of controlling social change and maintaining the system. In this frame of reference, genocide is viewed as a radical policy because it reaches for a profound alteration of the very nature of the state and society. These scholars emphasize the decisive character of the Armenian genocide and differentiate between the periodic exploitation and occasional terrorization of the Armenians and the fmality of the deliberate policy to exterminate them and eliminate them from their homeland. Like all empires, the Ottoman Empire was a multinational state. At one time it stretched from the gates of vienna in the north to mecca in the south. From the sixteenth century to its collapse following World War i, the Ottoman Empire included areas of historic Armenia. By the early part of the twentieth century, it was a much shrunken state confined mostly to the middle east.
Hovannisian, in "Model Curriculum for Human Rights and Genocide california state board of Education, 1988.) (Armenian Genocide Studies: Resources - macquarie university, sydney 1997). Between 19 the Ottoman b empire, ruled by muslim Turks, carried out a policy to eliminate its Christian Armenian minority. This genocide was disorders preceded by a series of massacres in 1894-, and was followed by another series of massacres beginning in 1920. By 1922 Armenians had been eradicated from their historic homeland. There are at least two ways of looking at the Armenian experience in the final days of the Ottoman Empire. Some scholars regard the series of wholesale killings from the 1890s to the 1920s as evidence of a continuity in the deteriorating status of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. They maintain that, once initiated, the policy of exposing the Armenians to physical harm acquired its own momentum. Victimization escalated because it was not countermanded by prevailing outside pressure or attenuated by internal improvement and reconciliation.
of mass media. At a time when the sultan ruled absolutely, the evidence strongly implicated the head of state. In a thoughtful essay, terrence des Pres, the author of The survivor: An Anatorny of'Life in the death Camps and member of the United States Holocaust council, has captured the importance of remembering: Milan Kundera, the exiled czech novelist, has written that "the struggle. National catastrophes can be survived if (and perhaps only if) those to whom disaster happens can recover themselves through knowing the truth of their suffering. Great powers, on the other hand, would vanquish not only the peoples they subjugate but also the cultural mechanism that would sustain vital memory of historical crimes. When modern states make way for geo-political power plays, they are not above removing everything - nations, cultures, homelands - in their paths. Great powers regularly demolish other peoples' claim to dignity and place, and sometimes, as we know, the outcome is genocide. In a very real sense, therefore, kundera is right: against historical crimes we fight as best we can, and a cardinal part of this engagement is "the struggle of memory against forgetting".
When was unesco founded? What is the main goal for unesco establishment? How many members are there in unesco today? Stats and Ratings, from 1894 to 1896, sultan Abdul-Hamid ii carried out a series of massacres of the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire. The worst of the massacres occurred gpa in 1895, resulting in the death of thousands of civilians (estimates run from 100,000 to 300,000) and leaving tens of thousands destitute. Most of those killed were men. In many towns, the central marketplace and other Armenian-owned businesses were destroyed, usually by conflagration. The killings were done during the day and were witnessed by the general public (Bliss 1982).
Dying With, dignity, essay, research Paper
Unesco, unesco is the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (unesco). It was founded on 16 november 1945. Education, social and Natural Science, culture and Communication are the means to a far more ambitious goal: to build peace in the minds of men. Today, unesco functions as a laboratory of ideas and a standard-setter to forge universal agreements on emerging ethical issues. The Organization also serves as a clearinghouse — for the dissemination and sharing of information and knowledge — while helping Member States to build their human and institutional capacities in diverse fields. In short, unesco promotes international co-operation among its 191 way Member States and six Associate members in the fields of education, science, culture and communication. Unesco is working to create the conditions for genuine dialogue based upon respect for shared values and the dignity of each civilization and culture. This role is critical, particularly in the face of terrorism, which constitutes an attack against humanity. The world urgently requires global visions of sustainable development based upon observance of human rights, mutual respect and the alleviation of poverty, all of which lie at the heart of unesco's mission and activities.