They are contrary to just about every moral philosophy mankind has ever come up with.
A doctrine or system of moral conduct is a set of principles or guidelines that dictate what is considered right or wrong behavior within a specific context. This framework often shapes individual and societal values, influencing decisions and actions. Examples include religious moral codes, philosophical ethics, or cultural norms. Such systems provide a basis for evaluating actions and promoting a sense of responsibility and accountability.
they dont want to get in trouble for what they did and its a way to get rid of there actions
Adolf Hitler did not receive the Nobel Prize because his actions and beliefs promoted hatred, violence, and the violation of human rights. The Nobel Prizes are awarded for achievements that bring about positive change in the world, such as advancements in science, literature, and peace, which Hitler's actions were contrary to.
Nonmoral actions are those that do not involve ethical considerations or judgments. Examples include mundane activities like brushing your teeth, choosing what to eat for breakfast, or walking your dog. These actions are typically neutral and do not have moral implications, as they do not affect the well-being of others or involve concepts of right and wrong.
Judge Warren believed segregation in schools was wrong because it violated the principle of equality guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. He argued that segregated educational facilities were inherently unequal, leading to a sense of inferiority among minority students. This inequality not only impacted their educational opportunities but also their personal development and social integration. Ultimately, he concluded that segregation harmed both individuals and society as a whole.
it was very wrong.
The Judge - 1986 I Wrong Baby was released on: USA: 5 May 1988
It is considered wrong in Islam to judge others, as only Allah has the right to judge people.
In ethics, the doctrine that actions should be judged right or wrong on the basis of their consequences. The most familiar example would be utilitarianism - that action is best that produces the greatest good for the greatest number.
I personally believe that it is wrong to judge people based on their religion.
Unless you have proof you are not guilty the judge will still find you guilty. Why not just take responsibility for your actions if you are guilty.
It has no scientific basis.
Some people would say no on the basis that they wouldn't, but there is nothing wrong with it.
In theory, the purpose of any government is to make society better for everyone who is governed by that government, hence, laws must be beneficial for the general public. If a law is designed instead to benefit some segment of the public (i.e., a special interest group) at the expense of the general public, then the law is wrong. Note that the US Supreme Court does not judge laws on the basis that I described above; it judges them solely on the basis of their consistency with the US constitution. The constitution can be wrong in some respects, but it remains the supreme law of the land. If it is wrong, it can be amended.
Yes, judges can be thrown out.
Bad Movement
so if you get it wrong you can back-track and see where you went wrong.