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

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
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
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

-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

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

knowledge can be when a reliable witness knows someone killed
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
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

Purchase answer to see full

Place your order
(550 words)

Approximate price: $22

Calculate the price of your order

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
The price is based on these factors:
Academic level
Number of pages
Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support
On-demand options
  • Writer’s samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Our guarantees

Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.

Money-back guarantee

You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

Zero-plagiarism guarantee

Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.

Free-revision policy

Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.

Privacy policy

Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.

Fair-cooperation guarantee

By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.