philosophicsl essay part 2....
Nonetheless I have to admit that human insanity is not only isn't just ("not only" is usually followed by "but also") a vice of the past. Present proves our madness by an abundance of paradox believes we have We can continue to see our madness through a plethora of hyprocrisies that persist (sentence had some awkward phrasing. Big points though abundance --> plethora (works better here), paradox --> hypocrasy (also works better), paradoxes are usually logical things. For example "This sentence is false" is a paradox). The death penalty, for instance, is still not entirely abolished and degrading reduces human rights -we all agree on- to a privilege that we give people who behave adequately and which we deprive from people who have committed a crime. The fact that we murder people who have murdered in order to show that murdering is an atrocity testifies is evidence of an incredible illogicality contradiction which would not be possible if a philosopher would had political and judicial power. How I can I be so convinced that there would not be any crimes of humanity, -such as the death penalty?. Well, imagine that someone has murdered an innocent person. What would the family or the friends of the victims like to do? If they were given the possibility, they would probably like to murder the perpetrator in the same cruel way he or she has committed the crime. This is indeed a totally human reaction. It is legitimate to have the desire to take revenge , but it would be inexcusable to realize it. Since the majority of the states has have (I think majority is plural, but am starting to doubt myself, sounds better this way) abolished the death penalty, we can conclude that law is in many cases determined by reason- the ability philosophers value so much scintillate with. So, since good working law is only as good as it is because of it's philosophical spirit, then why should a state not be entirely ruled by philosophers? If we had laws adjusting to to ordinary people's feelings, we would probably extinct destroy the human race or at least create unbearable conditions of existence. Probably there are probably several people who disagree saying that there is nothing wrong about my example. They would probably postulate that atrocities need to be punished in an appropriate way, and that lynching a murder -or executing him with the death penalty ( the legalized version of lynching) is necessary in some cases. In contrast to the abundance of people who still think to have indisputable evidence for the legitimacy the death penalty, a philosopher would say that murder is never justice justified. He would rather say:"Capital punishment is the most premeditated of murders." (Albert Camus, French philosopher).
------------------------------
Interesting. Two points on grammar/whatever.
Sepearate into paragraphs. Not sure if italk just ruined the formatting w/r/t that or what.
I think you are overusing m-dashes, but I also overuse them a lot so I can't be too critical.
On substance: Interesting example and I think your argument is fairly solid. The idea that reason trumps consensus when it comes to justice. One small note though. The word "lynching" has some very negative racial connotations in the U.S. When people thinkin of lynching they think of dark times in U.S. history. Then again, you might want to abuse that association to make your essay stronger.
philosophicsl essay part 2....
Nonetheless I have to admit that human insanity is not only a vice of the past. Present proves our madness by an abundance of paradox believes we have. The death penalty, for instance, is still not entirely abolished and degrading human rights -we all agree on- to a privilege that we give people who behave adequately and which we deprive from people who have committed a crime. The fact that we murder people who have murdered in order to show that murdering is an atrocity testifies of an incredible illogicality which would not be possible if a philosopher would had political and judicial power. How can I be so convinced that there would not be any crimes of humanity -such as the death penalty?. Well, imagine that someone has murdered an innocent person. What would the family or the friends of the victims like to do? If they were given the possibility, they would probably like to murder the perpetrator in the same cruel way he or she has committed the crime. This is indeed a totally human reaction. It is legitimate to have the desire to take revenge , but it would be inexcusable to realize it. Since the majority of the states have abolished the death penalty, we can conclude that law is in many cases determined by reason- the ability that philosophers scintillate with. So, since good working law is only as good as it is because of it's philosophical spirit, then why should a state not be entirely ruled by philosophers? If we had laws adjusting to to ordinary people's feelings, we would probably extinct the human race or at least create unbearable conditions of existence. Probably there are several people who disagree saying that there is nothing wrong about my example. They would probably postulate that atrocities need to be punished in an appropriate way, and that lynching a murder -or executing him with the death penalty ( the legalized version of lynching) is necessary in some cases. In contrast to the abundance of people who still think to have indisputable evidence for the legitimacy the death penalty, a philosopher would say that murder is never justice. He would rather say:"Capital punishment is the most premeditated of murders." (Albert Camus, French philosopher).
