In either case, read and use any relevant points from this selection from Dostoevsky’s Brothers Karamazov that is attached. Please make reference/ source to the attachment Be sure you support your views with one or more underlying moral principle(s) that have not already been shown to be flawed unless you can say why and how the flaws do not apply or are not really flaws.The questions: It seems to be morally acceptable to use lethal force, where necessary, to prevent someone from intentionally killing an innocent person or innocent people, say when he is holding one or more hostages. But many people think capital punishment is immoral to subject a criminal to who actually already killed someone or many people. Yet the first person is only threatening an innocent person, and the second person has already committed the murder(s). Why should it be wrong to kill someone who has already murdered someone but right to kill someone who has not yet murdered the innocent victim? Isn’t the crime worse after the murder than before it, and shouldn’t the harsher response be for the more evil act, not the less evil one? And if we are not going to kill someone after he has murdered, what right is there to kill him before he has murdered? Shouldn’t we just wait for him to commit the murder if that will mean we don’t need to kill him then? Surely not. So what is wrong here? What is the justification for any sort of punishment, since punishment harms people? But particularly what is the justification for execution, if there is a justification for it? Explain and justify your answer fully
