Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
In this case analysis, you have five tasks; you may cut and paste these in your response to the case to be sure you respond to each sincerely/deeply (take all the words you need):
Explain your understanding of the case.
Give a thorough, philosophical exegesis of the relevant aspects of the ACLU paper, Kant and Van den Haag’s arguments, and the readings on the grounding of human rights in nature or personhood. Integrate other readings from the course as you are able. Please note that virtue ethics and natural law both work well with human rights as natural rights and the dignity of personhood. Give a thorough discussion of The Essential View of the Dignity of Each Human Person.
Present an argument applying the relevant philosophers to the case at hand. This should include an account of what each philosopher would argue should happen to Bob.
Present an argument explaining why one of the philosophers can be viewed as offering a more successful solution to the case at hand.
In ONE paragraph, please explain how you think we should treat Bob.
Case
Consider Bob. Bob was raised by wolves (literally – don’t ask me how). Although his IQ would probably be average, there is no way to test it since Bob doesn’t speak or read human language. One day, Bob emerged from the wilderness and ended up Downtown — the snazzy part of the city. He was hungry (presumably), so he “found” some food in the usual wolf way: he stalked a mother walking her baby and, deciding it was easiest to prey on the weaker, killed and ate the baby. There’s no question that Bob is “guilty” of the crime. He did it, and there were lots of witnesses. What punishment should Bob get?
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.