Question

Ethical arguments against it basically , for example laws that limit or outright abolish affirmative defences for breaking them or are clearly intended to be applied broadly to every literal case of it. Are there any ethical arguments against those and how well do those arguments fare ?(or is this subjective ?, if so then feel free to ignore this part of the question)

Answer 1

Ethical arguments against laws limiting or banning affirmative defenses are subjective and can include limitations of individual rights, potential for unjust outcomes, and disproportionate punishments.

Step-by-step explanation:

The ethical arguments against laws that limit or abolish affirmative defenses are subjective and can vary depending on different perspectives. Some arguments against these laws may include:

1. The denial of affirmative defenses may infringe on an individual's rights and restrict their ability to present a complete defense.
2. Strict limitations on affirmative defenses may lead to unjust outcomes for individuals who may have valid justifications for their actions.
3. In some cases, the broad application of laws without room for affirmative defenses may result in disproportionate punishments.

It is important to note that ethical arguments are often subjective and can vary depending on individual values and beliefs. Therefore, the effectiveness of these arguments can also be subjective and open to debate.