Response Post

Answer question 1 and 2

• RPs should be 150-250 words
• Add new content, a distinction, or hypothesis and demonstrate how this new information makes the topic thread more clear
• Draw attention to a consideration that has been neglected, and demonstrate how this new information motivates clearer understanding of the topic

In each discussion forum, the object is to increase understanding of many different ethical views. Keep in mind the Principle of Charity. We have a responsibility to be open to new ideas about ethics here, just as you each have a responsibility to be open to your patients’ views. This openness includes the new theories introduced each week and the participants’ views expressed in the forum. Seek to understand a view or concept before criticizing it. If your understanding is incomplete, ask respectful questions targeted at the ideas, and not the person expressing them. Answer questions honestly and with respect.  We also have a responsibility to express our own views in such a way that invites discussion.  Avoid stereotypes and labelling groups or people, discussing ideas respectfully without use of irrelevant information about the arguer.  Avoidance of the ad hominem fallacy is crucial to ethical discussion.  This does not mean that disagreement is off limits! Disagreements are best made with support and respectful discourse and questioning. Going back to your own Initial Post (IP) and addressing questions is a great way to show respect for others who have asked questions in their Response post (RP) to your IP

1.  I believe that the Boston marathon bombing
was a blatant act of terrorism. The purpose of the bombings was solely to hurt
innocent people. According to Steve Mellin “It’s the way you terrorize an
entire population” (“Death Penalty For Boston Bomber Dzhokhar
Tsarnaev”, 2015).

The
E.L.F fires on the other hand may have also been an act of terrorism. This
violent was specifically aimed at certain organizations and it was made sure
that no one was to get hurt during the fires. I believe that’s the biggest
difference between these two violent acts, one was to purposefully harm people
the other was to just draw attention to a cause without hurting anyone.

When
I personally think of terrorism I think of the big acts of violence that hurt
hundreds of people. The main examples I always think of are the ones probably
most people think of, 9-11 & the Boston bombings. I don’t think I would
consider the E.L.F necessarily an act of terrorism. So I don’t think that that
specific term should be used to describe both of these acts. I do think the
term eco or environmental terrorism would be an okay term to use when talking
about the fires. I think this term makes the act seem less threatening to human
life but still shows the severity of the act.

If
I would have been on the jury for both of these trials I can say I would take
in to account, the main justification od punishment described by the doctrine
of retributivism. Simply put if someone hurts someone else then justice
requires that that person should be harmed too (Rachels & Rachels, 2015). I
know I would use this when considering the bombings, I would think that he hurt
all of those innocent people he should be hurt in return. When it comes to the
fire I would think he still deserved to be punished, he did not hurt anyone so
I don’t think he deserves to be physically hurt but he did damage property and
scare the families that own the businesses. So I do think she should still have
to own up to his crime and pay the price.

2.
I believe that the Boston marathon bombing was a blatant act of terrorism. The
purpose of the bombings was solely to hurt innocent people. According to Steve
Mellin “It’s the way you terrorize an entire population” (“Death
Penalty For Boston Bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev”, 2015).

The
E.L.F fires on the other hand may have also been an act of terrorism. This
violent was specifically aimed at certain organizations and it was made sure
that no one was to get hurt during the fires. I believe that’s the biggest
difference between these two violent acts, one was to purposefully harm people
the other was to just draw attention to a cause without hurting anyone.

When
I personally think of terrorism I think of the big acts of violence that hurt
hundreds of people. The main examples I always think of are the ones probably
most people think of, 9-11 & the Boston bombings. I don’t think I would
consider the E.L.F necessarily an act of terrorism. So I don’t think that that
specific term should be used to describe both of these acts. I do think the
term eco or environmental terrorism would be an okay term to use when talking
about the fires. I think this term makes the act seem less threatening to human
life but still shows the severity of the act.

If
I would have been on the jury for both of these trials I can say I would take
in to account, the main justification od punishment described by the doctrine
of retributivism. Simply put if someone hurts someone else then justice
requires that that person should be harmed too (Rachels & Rachels, 2015). I
know I would use this when considering the bombings, I would think that he hurt
all of those innocent people he should be hurt in return. When it comes to the
fire I would think he still deserved to be punished, he did not hurt anyone so
I don’t think he deserves to be physically hurt but he did damage property and
scare the families that own the businesses. So I do think she should still have
to own up to his crime and pay the price.