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.