The value of a human life is a somewhat subjective idea. There are people who value it more or less. The creature in Frankenstein seems to blame itself for the death of Victor and therefore feels that its moral obligation is to kill itself. When someone commits a crime do they deserve to be punished for their crime? Is giving some the death penalty moral? Are most citizens in the United States in agreement? In Mary Shelley’s book Frankenstein does she adequately address the value of one’s life and how does it relate to the death penalty today?
The creature in Frankenstein commits evil crimes. He murders and is responsible for multiple deaths, including at least in his mind Victor’s. He blames himself for Victor’s death and feels his way to …show more content…
The commentator Rashi explains this to mean that one who hurts a fellow human being has to pay the value of the damage. The courts would assess and figure out the damage caused. It does not mean if someone maims someone that they should be maimed the same way. Consider the following statement from the Law of Hammurabi: “If a builder builds a house for someone, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built falls in and kills its owner, then that builder shall be put to death. If it kills the son of the owner, then the son of that builder shall be put to death.” That would be ridiculous statement for us to follow. This also does not mean that people should get away with doing crimes. All this is telling us is that when people damage others, when they injure other people they deserve to be punished. If there was no punishment for those who commit crime they would not stop committing the. There are several reasons why people should get punished for their crimes; the main question is what that punishment should …show more content…
I think the majority of people feel this way. Punishments accomplish many things. Two other ethical reasons to consider include rights forfeiture and deterrence. Rights forfeiture means that when someone commits a crime they are giving up their right to live. This idea was first brought to light by John Locke (1632-1704) who argued that all people had a G-d given rights to life, health, liberty and property. He said people kept this throughout their life unless they violate the rights of others. The other one is deterrence which means that by punishing this person it will deter other people from committing similar crimes. The question is, would executing a criminal deter people more than putting the person away for life. In most cases I would say yes it is a bigger determent. Therefore there should be no moral problem with executing a criminal. While there are a few that say no way, all executions are immoral the majority of people don’t feel this
The creature in Frankenstein commits evil crimes. He murders and is responsible for multiple deaths, including at least in his mind Victor’s. He blames himself for Victor’s death and feels his way to …show more content…
The commentator Rashi explains this to mean that one who hurts a fellow human being has to pay the value of the damage. The courts would assess and figure out the damage caused. It does not mean if someone maims someone that they should be maimed the same way. Consider the following statement from the Law of Hammurabi: “If a builder builds a house for someone, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built falls in and kills its owner, then that builder shall be put to death. If it kills the son of the owner, then the son of that builder shall be put to death.” That would be ridiculous statement for us to follow. This also does not mean that people should get away with doing crimes. All this is telling us is that when people damage others, when they injure other people they deserve to be punished. If there was no punishment for those who commit crime they would not stop committing the. There are several reasons why people should get punished for their crimes; the main question is what that punishment should …show more content…
I think the majority of people feel this way. Punishments accomplish many things. Two other ethical reasons to consider include rights forfeiture and deterrence. Rights forfeiture means that when someone commits a crime they are giving up their right to live. This idea was first brought to light by John Locke (1632-1704) who argued that all people had a G-d given rights to life, health, liberty and property. He said people kept this throughout their life unless they violate the rights of others. The other one is deterrence which means that by punishing this person it will deter other people from committing similar crimes. The question is, would executing a criminal deter people more than putting the person away for life. In most cases I would say yes it is a bigger determent. Therefore there should be no moral problem with executing a criminal. While there are a few that say no way, all executions are immoral the majority of people don’t feel this