In at least 250 words, discuss a counter position against the use of morally permissible violence or life-harming action in which you use a different moral theory from the one used in the pro-position (question 1). You must define the basic moral principle of the counter moral theory and explain why it rejects any permissible use of violence or life-harming action in the case you’re discussing (it can be the same issue or a different one from your first answer). The choices for the moral theory or moral philosopher you will discuss in your contrary discussion on the question of a permissible moral use of violence or life-harming actions are: Utilitarianism, Immanuel Kant, Natural Law, Human Rights, Peter Singer, Aristotle, Carol Gilligan (feminist ethics of care), and/or a specific Religious based ethics. Conclude this discussion with a statement of your own moral view for or against, about the case you’ve presented regarding a morally permissible use of violence or life-harming action and explain what is your moral rationale and whether it matches up with one of the moral theories studied in the course, or if it rests on some other moral position and perspective. And if so, how would you explain the moral principle behind your position.