Moral Arguments: Killing in Self-Defense discussion I need a tutor who 100% knows what they are doing, and what they are talking about. Please take a look

Moral Arguments: Killing in Self-Defense discussion I need a tutor who 100% knows what they are doing, and what they are talking about. Please take a look at the questions before bidding. I need the best philosophy tutor who can go very in depth and be very detailed to the deepest degree, with answering these questions.

-3 questions

-each question has notes underneath it from class, NOTES ARE IMPORTANT. Take these notes into serious consideration when answering each question. Incorporate things from notes into the answers to help produce a better overall answer.

-Each answer must be 550-700 words

-NO plagiarism or I will request for a refund

-Must follow the criteria

-if you do not think you can answer these questions in depth and very detailed and down to the point then please do not bid.

-I need a very good philosophy tutor who can get me an A!!

Attached below is the question and notes and criteria. 1. Argue for your opinion in these questions
2. It doesn’t have to be your actual view just a view, and it doesn’t have to be
black or white
3. Give reasons why something might be bad or good
4. Either commit to one of the sides or provide reasons for both sides
Here are the questions for the next exam:
1. Consider the claim: It is morally permissible to kill someone who poses a lethal
threat to you only if that person has forfeited their right that you not kill them.
Evaluate the plausibility of this claim.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
validate the plausibility of the claim
start by explaining the view and explaining the kind of cases that might
motivate the view
provide examples of when the claim works
start presenting cases in which the view works, but also explain the view
explain the vocabulary
define: what is a lethal threat? – A is a lethal threat to B when the following
happens: A causes B’s death unless B kills A first
◦
mention the definition of a lethal threat does not involve intention or
knowledge
◦
it is the only way to prevent your death is to kill the person that will
cause it
◦
the only way of not being killed is to kill **
mention the difference between morally permissible and
we are discussing not what the law says but what is moral
To for-fit your right of freedom – if A is maicously trying to kill you that is a
reason why they lose their right not to be killed by you
this question is given a necessary condition not a sufficient condition
to argue against this – this person poses a lethal threat to you and it is ok
for you to kill them but they have not forfeited their right to kill you
2. In criminal cases a person is often convicted when it is highly probable (but not
certain) that they committed the crime. Statistical evidence can make it highly
probable that a defendant committed a crime. And yet, in the United States,
judges and juries are typically unwilling to convict someone on the basis of
statistical evidence. Do you think judges and juries should convict on the basis of
statistical evidence? Why or why not?
•
You can conclude on the basis of statistical evidence that a certain result is
extremely likely
•
Buy a lottery ticket it is extremely likely that you will not win – this is
statistical evidence, and if it can be this accurate in this case, then why
don’t we use it to convict people
• Imagine a biker is hit by a bus and nobody knows if it was the blue bus or the
green bus. given 100 buses 90 of which are blue it is 90% chance blue
bus hits the person
•
One question is why
•
there second question is should we use statistical evidence to convict
people – and have them be responsible for their action not necessarily go
to jail but
•
statistical evidence – define: there are 20 busses that pass through – it is
90% likely that the blue bus company is responsible that it is their fault this a statistical evidence- this is different from fingerprint because…
•
there is no difference and that is why it should be used
•
a rough percentage of confidence
•
it is difficult to define statistical evidence, as everything can be statistically
measured with confidence fingerprints, witness statement, etc.
•
knowledge is the difference between statistical evidence and non-statistical
evidence
•
knowledge can be when a reliable witness knows someone killed
someone
3. In the United States, if someone commits a crime and, due to mental illness,
does not understand the nature of their act, this fact can get them “off the hook”.
But if someone commits a crime and, due to some form of irrationality, does not
understand the nature of their act, this fact will not get them “off the hook”. Do
you think the law should treat these two situations differently? Why or why not?
•
•
•
•
Mental illness can be diagnosed while irrationality can just be claimed
irrationality- just some weird way of thinking – you are not careful enough
with your beliefs and you have irrational beliefs
IF you think your cutting a tree but your killing a person – then your
excused
BUT if you get into conspiracy theories ad the leader of your cult convinces
you to kill some person then this is not excused this is irrational thinking
that came from joining your retard cult
•
•
•
•
•
Is it ok to make this distinction – we have diagnosis for distinction but we
don’t have diagnosis for irrationality – maybe they have to be objectively
excused because irrationality can be conflicting, but because it cannot be
diagnosed it cannot be used to excuse people of their crimes
In the case where mental illness is a indirect cause of irrationality – the
mental illness has to be the direct, or just the cause, whichever you can
choose to argue
irrationality might not just be false belief but can also be brainwashing – this
person might not be irrational but just with false beliefs, in which the way
you think is defective – people who grew up in sexist, racist, homophobic
beliefs is brainwashed and therefore irrational
◦
SO EXPLAIN THAT irrational thinking is not just irrational thoughts,
but can be also brainwashed
◦
while to conclude, irrationality is a type of mental illness, there is no
diagnosis
MORAL REASON AND FAIRNESS VS.. APPLICABILITY OF LAW

Purchase answer to see full
attachment