Question 2: The leader of a militia group has been directing people to commit crimes against humanity. These crimes are well documented. Should that leader be granted amnesty in exchange for stopping...

Question 2: The leader of a militia group has been directing people to commit crimes against humanity. These crimes are well documented. Should that leader be granted amnesty in exchange for stopping the violence? Provide three potential answers for this question: one justified by utilitarian reasoning, one justified by deontological reasoning, and one justified by a different theory of your choice. Make sure the rationale / reasoning of each position and theory is clear. Conclude by explaining your opinion on amnesty in the context of just peace.Question 3: Research three political leaders who have taken different positions regarding irregular migration. (1) Explain the three positions (references required for this). (2) Identify which ethical theory is used or implied to justify each position. Explain the theories and how you view them as being the implied / utilized theory of each political leader. (3) Reflect on what it means if political leaders or political parties use different justifications (ethical theories) for different issues – does that matter?Question 4: Answer the question: “Should anyone be able to post whatever they want on social media?” from (1) a contractualist perspective (within a system that protects freedom of speech), (2) a utilitarian perspective, and (3) a virtue ethics perspective. As we saw in the case of Elonis v. United States (as well as in the case of Jamal Knox), interpretation matters (even of well-established laws, such as threatening bodily harm or intimidation). What was being interpreted in the Elonis case? How might critical ethicists (drawing upon feminist, post-colonial or post-modern theory) view the application of laws relating to regulating social media?