Michael Sandel’s Example of Casey Martin’s Golf Cart
Michael Sandel explanation of the Casey martin golf cart case is that Casey martin Who was a professional golfer who had a circulatory disorder were by walking The golf course would cause him great pain and put him at risk hemorrhaging and Serious fracture. He asks the PGA if he could use a golf cart during the games. The PGA said No he could not use a cart citing rules against using carts during top professional games. Martin took the PGA to court arguing that he had disabilities and was protected under the 1990 American with disabilities act, citing reasonable accommodations provided it didn’t alter the nature of the game.
The case went all the way up to the U. S Supreme court where the justices found them sleeves dealing with a silly argument . the court rule in Martin favors seven to two that he had a right to use a golf cart. Citing that the golf cart Was not in consistent with the game of golf . the PGA said that martin was being giving And advantage. 2. Explain what Michael Sandel calls our “obligations of solidarity. ” According to Sandel, what makes us morally bound by these obligations of solidarity, and why does the Rawlsian/liberal account of obligation fail to include these types of obligation?
Michael sandel say’s that our obligations of solidarity are particular and are not universal. They are moral responsibilities we awe and those who share a certain history with . they are also not an act of consent and are from an aspect of moral reflection. From my stories and implicated stories of others. What makes us morally bound by these obligations of solidarity is we can full fill the general duty to help others by helping those Who are chosen at hand, such as family members, fellow citizens provided it respects the Human rights of persons every where.
And the reason why rawlian/liberal account of An obligation fails to include these types of obligations because it does not leave room For freedom . rawls maintain that we should set a side our particular aims, attachments and conceptions which justice is behind the veil of ignorance 3. What does Ernest van den Haag think about the issue of whether the death penalty is justifiable due its deterrent effects? On what grounds would van den Haag justify the death penalty even if it were shown that the death penalty had no deterrent effects
Ernest van den Haag thinks that even though we don’t know for certain weather the death penalty deters or prevent other murders. We should be that it does . Do to our ignorance. We take a Gamble, Not to choose capital punishment for first degree murder it is mush a bet that capital Punishment does not deter as choosing policy but as a bet that it does. We are betting that in the death of some murders it will be more than compensated for the lives Of some innocent not to be killed.
If were right, we have saved lives of the innocent if were wrong Unfortunately we have sacrificed the lives of some murder. If we choose not to have social policy of Capital punishment. If this doesn’t work as a deterrent we come out ahead but if it does work then We missed an opportunity to save innocent lives. 4. What does Ernest van den Haag think about the morality of the death penalty if there is the possibility that some innocent people may get executed? Provide an analysis of his line of reasoning here.
Ernest thinks that capital punishment is unjust ed because it may lead to the execution of the Innocent or the guilty poor people are more likely to be executed than someone who is will off. He say’s that the claims are relevant only if doing justice is for punishment. Unless you think that It’s good and that the guilty are punished rather than the innocent. That if justice is included for the Purpose of punishing some for the crime that they have committed. Then it is come possible To justify and punishments even death.
In the per suite of justice is not the purpose of penalties, the injustice cannot be an objection to the death penalty. Despite all precautions errors will happen and the innocent person may be found guilty of a crime they did not commit therefore in justices do not reside in the penalties of in flicked mal distribution in justice is not the objection to the A death penalty but to the process of a trail. If capital punishment deters enough murders to reduce the Total number of innocent people being killed for no reason. 5.
How does Bedau argue that the death penalty cannot be fully retributive, and why does he conclude from this that the principle of “a life for a life” cannot justify the execution of murders? Provide an analysis of his line of reasoning here. Bedan argues that the death penalty cannot deter and executed person from doing more crimes. it is also important to that at the most it prevents them from commiting more crimes it is also wrong to think that in every execution the death pentalty has proved to be fallible crime preventaive once the person has been put to death it is phlically impossible for them to commit more crimes. ut in capacitation is not identical with prevention . were prevention by means of incapacition occurs if the person commiting the crimes would ave commited other crimes if he or she had not been executed. Submission Guidelines ·Include your name and the assignment name (Homework Assignment 9) in the text of the document ·Include your name and the assignment name (Homework Assignment 9) in the name of the file that you submit