Premium Essay

Difference Between Thomson And Otsuka

Submitted By
Words 977
Pages 4
The different Thomson and Otsuka is that Judith Jarvis Thomson(1991) thinks it is sometimes permissible to kill innocent persons while Michael Otsuka(1994) thinks it is impermissible to kill innocent persons because it is only permissible to kill people morally responsible of infringing your right to live, and innocent persons are not morally responsible.

I find Otsuka’s argument which is as follow less rationally compelling because I think P2 is not ture:
P1:It is impermissible to kill innocent bystander based on thomson’s theory
P2:There is no moral difference between innoncent bystander and innocent aggressor or innocent threat
C:It is also impermissible to kill innocent aggressor or innocent threat For Otsuka, P2 is ture because …show more content…
A fat man is pushed off a ciff, if you let the fat man land on you and kill you, the fat man will live using you as a cushion, but if you walk away, the fat man will be killed. The fat man in this case is acted as a innonevt threat. Now assume besides walking away and kill the fat man, you have the choice to grab a random nearby innocent to be clashed and act as the cushion,so you would not be killing a innonet threat, but instead, you killed a innonece bystander. If Otsuka is correct, then it would be morally equivalent to kill the innonect threat or a innonect bystander. However, you are clearly more blameworthy for the death of the bystander,which makes you more morally responsible based on the definion of Klein(2005). So Otsuka’s argument cannot be …show more content…
Therefore, it would be permissible to kill a innonect aggrosser and a innonect threat just like Thomson’s conclusion. To come up with the conclusion, Thomson have use a right-approach as follows: P1:People lost their right to live when they will infringe others right to live
P2:Innocent threat and innocent aggressor will infringe your right to live if you don’t kill them
P3: Actions that do not infrinige any right are permissible
C:It is permissible to kill innocent threat and innocent aggressors I think the argument is rational compelling but Otsuka have argue that innoncent person do not infringe your right because they do not have any intention to. And I disagree, Because when a person is strongly intented to kill you, as long as no action is performed, the person do not infringe any right. Or even when a action is performed to clearly show their intent to kill you, for example the person keeps performing witchcraft everyday with a strong believe it would kill you, but no harm had actually done to you, you can hardly say the person is infringing your right to live. The examples shows intention do not make a moral different in a right approach. Therefore, as long as a person have performed a imminent

Similar Documents

Free Essay

Proportional Self Defence

...There has always been much debate and deliberation throughout the years over the controversial topic of self-defence. This level of disputation is especially heightened when factors of innocents come into play, particularly that of an innocent threat. An innocent threat is that which threatens your right to live however is not acting from an intention to kill you. Such that - even though regarded as ‘innocent’ - still imposes an issue to oneself that if no action is taken this undeniable threat will kill you or cause harm. Therefore action proportional to the threat, I believe must be put under the banner of self-defence and as result be deemed permissible. Throughout philosophical history two main concepts upon innocence and self-defence have shone through; the restrictive theory and the permissive theory. The restrictive theory very much supports innocence as a holistic body in that even though a threat, the threat remains innocent thus it is impermissible to cause harm or death. On the other side of the spectrum is the permissive theory. This theory supports the man that is being threatened as it believes threats immediately lose their right to live, thus it is permissible to defend oneself. The restrictive theory is more so then not based on rights whilst the permissive theory embodies a more intuitive and consequential approach hence why it is better for worldly application. J.J. Thompson - a philosopher whose field is in ethics and applied ethics - is in full support...

Words: 1387 - Pages: 6

Premium Essay

Marketing

...Professor Roger Palmer, Head of the School of Management, Henley Business School, UK The globalization of companies is the involvement of customers, producers, suppliers, and other stakeholders in the global marketing process. Global marketing therefore reflects the trend of firms selling products and services across many countries. Drawing on an incomparable breadth of international examples, Svend Hollensen not only demonstrates how global marketing works, but also how it relates to real decisions around the world. This book offers a truly global approach with cases and exhibits from all parts of the world, including Europe, the Middle East, Africa, the Far East, North and South America. It provides a complete and concentrated overview of the total international marketing planning process, along with many new, up-to-date exhibits and cases, which illustrate the theory by showing practical applications. • Extensive coverage of hot topics such as glocalization, born globals, value creation, value net, celebrity branding, brand piracy, and viral marketing, as well as a comprehensive new section on integrated marketing communication through social networking. • Brand new case studies focus on globally recognized brands and companies operating in a number of countries, including Build-A-Bear Workshop, Hello Kitty, Ralph Lauren and Sony Music Entertainment. • Global Marketing ‘Svend Hollensen writes with real authority and insight having been...

Words: 33515 - Pages: 135

Free Essay

Case

...Business Quiz DHL Baseline/Tagline/AdLineof Company/Brands WE make importing Smooth Doordarshan Satyam Sivam Sundaram Electrolux India Makes life a little easier Energizer Keep going ESSAR Steel 24 carat steel Fed-Ex The World On Time Ford Mondeo Redefined Aggression Ford Motors Built for the road ahead Godrej locks PEACE OF MIND.GUARANTEED Graviera Suitings THE MAN OF SUBSTANCE Gucci Quality is remembered long after the price is forgotten Haier Inspired living Harley-Davidson If you don't have to answer to anyone, what would you do Harrod's retailer, ENTER A DIFFERENT London WORLD Hero Honda CBZ Motorcycling Unplugged Hero Honda Born in a studio, not in a Passion factory Hindustan Times Let there be light Hitachi Inspire the Next Honda The power of dreams Honda DIO FROM INDIA TO THE WORLD.AND TO YOU HSBC World's local bank Hughes Software Think skywards HYUNDAI Play a bigger game ELANTRA Hyundai's new ad Drive your way Jobsahead.com FILL IN YOUR AMBITION Johnnie Walker Keep Walking whiskey Kingfisher airlines Fly the good times Kodak You press the button and we do the rest Lacoste Because what you are LG EXPAND YOUR LIFE LG AC BREATHE HEALTHY Lufthansa There is no better way to 1 Created By: S.Sriram MBA-HR, TAMILNADU srirams@gmx.com Company Accenture Air Deccan Air India Air Sahara Airtel AKAI Allen Solly Allianz Insurance Apple Computers Bajaj Auto Bajaj Pulsar Bajaj spirit Blue Star BluestarAC Bournvita Brooke Bond BSNL BUSINESS STANDARD BUSINESSWORL Magazine of the...

Words: 24272 - Pages: 98