This is one of the most illusionary things because it differs a lot depending on society, culture, surrounding, religion and other factors. For instance, everyone would agree that killing someone has nothing to do with morality and such an act even contradicts it. Meanwhile, there are still countries where death penalty is a norm, where lapidation is implemented as a punishment and it is considered to be for sake of morality. But isn’t it the same? It also kills people. So, who does have the right to decide whose death is good for morality and whose death is bad for that?
The rate of death penalties has been growing in America during the last few decades. On one hand, it can be explained by the wish of the government to maintain justice and to prevent more crimes that may be committed. On the other hand, there is a question of morality because in such a case justice is ruled by the same principles that the crime itself. According to this, there is a legalized murder that is supported by the laws and does not contradict moral principles. But looking for an explanation and investigating this question in more details, one more important fact should be arisen – motivation of people who support death penalty. Unfortunately, the truth is that the followers of this idea are “inspired” by appetite for revenge, not for justice. Also, religion should be addressed in the search for the right answer. It is wildly promulgated that murder is one of the greatest sins but very often religion supports politics better than own principles. Basing on the abovementioned, morality becomes the matter of the political system. The more this question is discussed, the more contradictions are found that is why it is hard to disagree with Bucciarelli, Khemlani and Johnson-Laird about the fact that “the principle of moral inconsistency postulates that the beliefs underlying your moral evaluation are neither