Today, August 7, the infamous James Holmes was sentenced to life in prison instead of receiving the death penalty. Three years ago he walked into a large movie theatre playing The Dark Knight Rises, wielding tear gas, a gas mask, 4 guns, and 700 rounds of ammunition. He shot and killed 12 people as well as injuring 70 others. Two of the people that died were a little girl and an unborn child. Their mother was permanently injured, confined to a wheelchair.

The reason James Holmes received his sentence was because the jury could not agree fully on giving him the death sentence. Now, I don’t know what the judge’s stance on this was, but I believe he would have to adhere to the jury’s verdict. So we’re going to look at the jury. Why would someone honestly not be ok with giving this man the death sentence? I myself am not a strong believer in the death sentence, but under extreme circumstances like this one, I would be all for it. Apparently the reason he received his sentence is because he appeared to be mentally insane in his actions, thus leading some jury members to not be ok with killing a severely disturbed person. Let me ask you this: Do you think this man should live out the rest of his life, while he took so many innocent lives? In my mind, there is absolutely no logical excuse as to not have this man put to death. Well here’s just another example of cultural relativism. In many other countries, this man would have had a much stricter punishment and it wouldn’t have taken 3 years to come up with a verdict. “Cultural relativism is a descriptive theory that states that different cultures have different moral codes”. (Rosenstand, 2013)

References

Rosenstand, N. (2013). The Moral of the Story: An Introduction to Ethics (7th ed., p. 125). New York, New York: McGraw Hill.

BBC News. (2015, August 7). Colorado gunman James Holmes sentenced to life in prison [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbRoSfYj038

I just read a story about the death of Cecil the Lion. You may have heard of it already. Basically to sum it up, a dentist by the name of Dr. Palmer took a trip down to Zimbabwe to hunt. He went to a national park and shot Cecil with an automatic crossbow. Now, obviously this guy has issues with his masculinity. Was it morally right for him to shoot the lion for sport? Maybe if you follow the philosophy of egoism. This also brings up another question. Should hunting purely for sport be outlawed? In my opinion, absolutely. Sure, most of us don’t see an animal’s life as equal to another human’s. But what gives you the right to kill another creature in cold blood? I can understand if you have a need to kill to survive, or if there is an infestation. The fact that it is still okay to hunt for sport is just another example of cultural relativism. “Cultural relativism is a descriptive theory that states that different cultures have different moral codes”. (Rosenstand, 2013)

References

Rosenstand, N. (2013). The Moral of the Story: An Introduction to Ethics (7th ed., p. 232). New York, New York: McGraw Hill.

The Guardian. (2015, July 30). The Guardian view on Cecil the lion: the immorality is in the pleasure of the kill. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/30/the-guardian-view-on-cecil-the-lion-the-immorality-is-in-the-pleasure-of-the-kill

I recently found this story about a 28 year old woman who died of cancer. Her dying wish was that she could have children. Her eggs had been put on ice, and her mother went to court to persuade the Judge to let her use the eggs to give birth to her daughter’s children, which would be her grandchildren. The mother stated that her daughter told her to go through with the procedure and use an anonymous sperm donor for the IVF procedure. Unfortunately the mother was unable to produce enough evidence that her daughter had indeed consented to this. The Judge denied the mother her request. Now my question is, even though this was technically the legally right thing to do, was it truly the morally right thing to do? A woman dies of cancer at an early age, and her mother wants to do right by her last dying wish. Even though the mother didn’t produce enough legal documents, as long as she was physically approved by a doctor, what would be the harm in letting her go through with it? It appears to me that the Judge was using hard universalism instead of using deontology. “Hard universalism holds that there is one universal moral code. It is the viewpoint expressed by those who are on a quest for the code”. (Rosenstand, 2013)

References

Rosenstand, N. (2013). The Moral of the Story: An Introduction to Ethics (7th ed., p. 232). New York, New York: McGraw Hill.

Elgot, J. (2015, June 20). Mother loses bid to use dead daughter's frozen eggs to give birth to grandchild. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jun/15/mother-loses-bid-to-use-dead-daughters-frozen-eggs-to-give-birth-to-grandchild