1. Evaluating an argument “Rutherford’s Tiger”
Key terms:
The parents are concerned about the potential harm their children may be placed in by the proximity of the tiger to the nearby elementary school, should the tiger ever escape. The parents fear that the counter measurements to prevent the tiger from escaping are insufficient. Therefore, they want the tiger to be relocated outside the town.
Main conclusion:
“It is safe to keep a Bengal tiger in the backyard”
Argument support:
In his defends, Rutherford uses three main arguments to explain why he refuses to relocate the tiger. He first points out legal reasons by claiming that he meets the requirements for lawfully owning a tiger. The tiger is registered with the local law enforcement, one does not need experience in keeping or raising a tiger, and the tiger is legally purchased and captive bred.…show more content… No, it was not. Not because of the death sentence he recommended, but by recommending this sentence. From a merely legal standpoint, it was just to have Billy Budd sentenced to death of what he did objectively. Even if he did not intend for death to follow from his strike, he still committed murder and therefore deserved punishment for that crime according to the law. Billy Budd most likely realized that it was a just sentence as well, which could be why he was at peace with the verdict. However, form a moral standpoint it was not just. Vere violated his conscious and acted when he was morally unsure of whether it was the right thing to do or not. Vere’s conscience was telling him that Billy was not morally blameworthy. Vere used utilitarian arguments to convince the other officers. In general, I believe that the needs of the many outweigh that of the few. However, it depends on the severity of the 'need'. Furthermore, one life does not have a higher value than many lives as the value of life cannot be weighed or compared. To kill a person to save many is therefore
