The Ethicality Of Killing In Self-Defense

Reasonable people will generally go a long distance to protect their loved-ones. However, most reasonable people would believe that killing someone in order to protect their loved ones would be immoral and harmful. In the case of R v. Buzizi [2013], a man killed another in a supposed effort to protect his cousin. On an early morning in Montréal, the accused’s cousin and the victim ensued in a brawl (Casey). The initial fight was broken up by a third party. A few moments later, the accused, Mr. Buzizi, who saw the initial assault from afar, intervened and pushed the victim (Casey). Then, Mr. Buzizi noticed that the victim had an exacto knife, and that his cousin had a serious wound on his neck (R v. Buzizi, para 24). For fear that the

The article “Shootings Test Limits of New Self-Defense Law” by Ralph Blumenthal tells the story of Joe Horn, a man in Texas, who shot two men in what he claimed was self-defense under the recently instated “castle doctrine.”

In the United States, the use of the death penalty continues to be a controversial issue. Every election year, politicians, wishing to appeal to the moral sentiments of voters, routinely compete with each other as to who will be toughest in extending the death penalty to those persons who have been convicted of first-degree murder. Both proponents and opponents of capital punishment present compelling arguments to support their claims. Often their arguments are made on different interpretations of what is moral in a just society. In this essay, I intend to present major arguments of those who support the death penalty and those who are opposed to state sanctioned executions application . However, I do intend to fairly and accurately

In recent years, the self-defense doctrine in several jurisdictions has been changing. Some jurisdictions have started using “stand your ground” laws, which change the traditional requirement that the person being attacked must “retreat to the wall” before using any kind of force. Proponents’ arguments include that the law merely codifies an individual’s deep-rooted right to defend oneself. Opponents’ arguments include that the law creates a “license to kill” and has negative racial implications.

According, to the the theory that self defence is an inherited right, a person should have the right to defend his or her life,

Gun law advocates argue that gun control laws diminish the amount of weaponry in the streets, and, by extension, in the hands of criminals. Likewise, gun control will diminish suicide. There were 464,033 total gun deaths between 1999 and 2013: 270,237 suicides (58.2% of total deaths); 174,773 homicides (37.7%); and 9,983 unintentional deaths (2.2%) (CDC, 2014). If perhaps, one of these families had a surviving brother or sister, mother or father, due to the current policies, it is worth enacting change. It is inhuman to allow people to die by firearms when they could simply be banned. In light of the recent mass shootings, families are left with the lingering wonder as to whether these national tragedies could be prevented. Criminals can easily

They may say that the previous law would allow prosecutors to claim that people who defended themselves instead of retreating could have retreated (Lott). Individuals in favor of these laws say that there was a question of what was an appropriate situation where victims could have defended themselves and when it was necessary to retreat. Of course, no law is indefectible, but they definitely have to be close. The previous law does need to be reinforced and include more specific regulation, but Stand Your Ground Laws need to be eliminated due to that they are too broad and bring no benefits. An excellent example of how Stand Your Ground Law cases should legitimately go is the Dunn’s case.

If we examine some arguments presented from both sides, opponents of the capital punishment claim that executing someone is nothing more than an immoral, state-authorized killing which undervalues the human life and destroys our respect for our government which itself says that killing is wrong. But the supporters of the death penalty think that certain murderers

One major issue in the United States today is the freedom to bear arms. There are split beliefs on this issue. Some people are against people being permitted to have a firearm because guns kill people. Other people are for being permitted to have a firearm because guns do not kill people on their own. It is the person behind the gun pulling the trigger that kills a person. In this paper, I will discuss both sides of this huge, nationwide issue.

‘Stand Your Ground’ laws have been at the center of escalating deliberation, mainly after the law was applied in a number of exceedingly-broadcasted events (Auerbach, 2015, p.1). Stand Your Ground law is a term for a “type of self-protection in which an individual is legally allowed to defend his or herself against a threat or perceived threat against their life; law requires that individual be in a place he or she is lawfully allowed to be (Long, N.D.).” The debate concentrated on whether Stand Your Ground laws justifiably serve to protect the public. The laws are relevant to American society’s perception on self-defense.

With time violence may become such a commonplace that even seemingly sane people will see no problem murdering a store clerk, opening fire on someone that cut them off on the highway, or killing a disobedient child. "A society that chooses violent death as a solution to a social problem gives official sanction to a climate of violence." (Prejean, 57)

From an early age, children are taught that murder is morally wrong. In today’s complex society that is impeded by unsettling periods of civil unrest, it is an expectation for everyone to acknowledge and accept that murder is one of the worst crimes individuals can commit. Perhaps it can be said that the death penalty is one of our legal system’s biggest contradictions of itself, as, if someone commits murder (or another heinous crime of that caliber), such ‘murderers’ will, in states that have capital punishment laws, be sent to Death Row and ultimately murdered in order to prevent potential future crimes by such perpetrators. I believe that the death penalty is wrong not only as it is immoral to take a life, but also, such ineffective laws waste money and do not deter crime.

Cultural subgroups that believe it is permissible to kill anyone merely because a person criticizes their religion is wrong and I do not agree with this view. From a different culture those actions are impermissible and I see it as cultural relativism. But just because that society believes they are doing the right thing does not actually mean it is morally right. My view is objectivist for this situation. The claim “It is wrong to kill innocent people” goes against a relativism view. With relativism there are no moral truths, which, cannot be true. Moral infallibility is main reason relativism is a problem. It states that cultures or individuals are never wrong about morality, which also cannot be true. These reasons is why I believe that

A homicide committed in prevention of crime would justify Selfridge 's use of deadly force against Charles Austin. If Selfridge was relying on the prevention of a crime defense, then no retreat was required (36).”

The extended self-preservation provisions all derived from the old English common law concept that individuals have a right to defend their homes. According to Flatow (2013), the owners may have the permissions to safeguard their properties from intruders even if they have to use deadly force. People also can use these laws when they are threatened to the death as it would trigger the individuals’ fear of death. Besides, the reason of killing others is to retrieve stolen properties as there is no other way to protect those properties especially at night. It is also to prevent someone who running away immediately after a theft. It is stated in Stand Your Ground law and Castle Doctrine. A Stand Your Ground law authorizes people to protect and defend themselves from a threat or perceived threat while Castle Doctrine gives immunity from liability to individual which means there is no duty to retreat when intruders enter their