0236566
In this squib, I criticize Norcross’ argument for the claim that Fred would still be acting immoral if he hired someone else to torture the puppies. I then argue that the second premise of Norcross’ target argument is false by providing an objection. My objection shows that there is a situation in which the action itself is immoral, but hiring someone to do it is not immoral.
Now I will present Norcross’ target argument in standard form, for the claim that hiring someone else to torture the puppies for Fred is just as immoral as Fred torturing them his self:
1. Torturing puppies is immoral.
2. Hiring people to do something immoral is itself immoral.
3. Therefore, hiring people to torture puppies is immoral.
Norcross’ present this …show more content…
Rule-Utilitarianism is a rule that endorses that each action provides the most happiness for any given party. Rule-Utilitarianism determines the rightness or wrongness of an action by determining if the action to be performed will offer the most happiness with everything considered. Norcross’ target argument is arguing that torturing puppies by oneself is just as immoral as hiring someone else to do it for Fred. The argument concludes by saying that torturing puppies is indeed immoral by oneself but also immoral if one hires someone else to do it. Therefore, we see that Rule Utilitarianism is used to decipher which action is going to produce the most …show more content…
If a random person goes and kills a terrorist we see this action as being immoral. If we “hire” someone from the military to be deployed to kill terrorists, the idea of killing a human is immoral, but the fact that we “hired” them to kill is not seen as immoral. Premise one is supported by common knowledge, as well as factual evidence such as the Declaration of Independence, which states that killing is immoral. Premise two is then supported because we deploy troops all the time to go over and place order back into many countries. Military duties include killing, which we know is immoral, but is not considered immoral through this type of
In this squib, I criticize Norcross’ argument for the claim that Fred would still be acting immoral if he hired someone else to torture the puppies. I then argue that the second premise of Norcross’ target argument is false by providing an objection. My objection shows that there is a situation in which the action itself is immoral, but hiring someone to do it is not immoral.
Now I will present Norcross’ target argument in standard form, for the claim that hiring someone else to torture the puppies for Fred is just as immoral as Fred torturing them his self:
1. Torturing puppies is immoral.
2. Hiring people to do something immoral is itself immoral.
3. Therefore, hiring people to torture puppies is immoral.
Norcross’ present this …show more content…
Rule-Utilitarianism is a rule that endorses that each action provides the most happiness for any given party. Rule-Utilitarianism determines the rightness or wrongness of an action by determining if the action to be performed will offer the most happiness with everything considered. Norcross’ target argument is arguing that torturing puppies by oneself is just as immoral as hiring someone else to do it for Fred. The argument concludes by saying that torturing puppies is indeed immoral by oneself but also immoral if one hires someone else to do it. Therefore, we see that Rule Utilitarianism is used to decipher which action is going to produce the most …show more content…
If a random person goes and kills a terrorist we see this action as being immoral. If we “hire” someone from the military to be deployed to kill terrorists, the idea of killing a human is immoral, but the fact that we “hired” them to kill is not seen as immoral. Premise one is supported by common knowledge, as well as factual evidence such as the Declaration of Independence, which states that killing is immoral. Premise two is then supported because we deploy troops all the time to go over and place order back into many countries. Military duties include killing, which we know is immoral, but is not considered immoral through this type of