Killing Is Wrong

There is a time where killing is a justified action. Times like this our self-defense, war, euthanasia, and assisted suicide. Another great example is in the book, by John Steinbeck, Of Mice and Men. George had to kill Lennie because Lennie’s punishment could have been worse, Lennie is not safe to be around, and George realized Lennie would never get better and the dream would never come true.

Is there any justification for shooting someone? Is it absurd for someone to kill another? But what if it’s euthanasia, mercy killing, or “putting someone out of their misery”? Does that then justify a murder? Or should justice be brung to the murderer?

Is murder ever justified? Out of all of the tests I’ve ever taken, this may be one of the hardest I’ve ever had to answer. Out of revenge and anger I don’t believe it is. You shouldn’t be getting angry to a point of taking someone’s life away. If it’s in protecting a country then I think it’s different. They don’t kill each other out of anger or revenge they kill each other in attempts to protect the people they love and cherish.

Life is sacred. This is an ideal that the majority of people can agree upon to a certain extent. For this reason taking the life of another has always been considered the most deplorable of crimes, one worthy of the harshest available punishment. Thus arises one of the great moral dilemmas of our time. Should taking the life of one who has taken the life of others be considered an available punishment? Is a murderer's life any less sacred than the victim's is? Can capital punishment, the death penalty, execution, legal murder, or whatever a society wishes to call it, be morally justifiable? The underlying question in this issue is if any kind of killing, regardless of reason, can be accepted. In this

Is killing ever justifiable? Are all lives equal? When exactly is it “okay” to kill someone? Obviously, all these questions have different answers and there’s no correct answer. A person’s beliefs, ethics, and morals vary person to person. I hope all people understand all life is precious and significant, even if the life is a spider. I will be speaking from my morals and what I believe in. My point of view also comes with examples from the book “Of Mice and Men”.

Killing another is nowhere near “justifiable”. Imagine this, someone close to you is framed for a murder they didn’t commit. If your state had the death penalty, they could be punished for nothing. There are many other situations when killing another is unacceptable and wrong. Killing someone takes away the meaning of their life. It will hurt those around them and those close to them. We were all put on this Earth for a reason and everyone should be able to achieve the goals they want to in their life. Whether it’s capital punishment, euthanasia,or the case of George and Lennie, killing others is an unjustifiable act.

   The law of God is, "Thou Shalt Not Kill" (Bible 79 ), and every system of ethics and rules of our society echoes that law. For decades, state and federal leaders have struggled with opposing views of the death penalty. Many minds have endured this difficult question-Who says it is right to take another human's life because of an act that he/she committed?

Is killing right? Of course not, but what if you killed in self defense? In the book “The Outsiders,” A sixteen year old boy named Johnny Cade, killed a guy named Robert “Bob” Sheldon, after he and his gang nearly drowned a fourteen year old boy named Ponyboy Curtis. The two minors claim that Johnny killed in self-defense. What is self-defense? Self defense is “the use of reasonable force to protect oneself or members of the family from bodily harm,” (Hill, 2016).Johnny’s action was in self defense because he had a fear of death, Bob and his colleagues are the aggressors, and Johnny’s thoughts were irrational.

There are two major ideas as to why it is considered wrong to kill another person. The first is that by doing so you prevent that person from achieving or fulfilling their desires. In terms of the abortion debate this favours pro-choice, as foetuses don’t have desires, however that idea itself is flawed. Other groups of people that don’t have desires, such as people suffering depression, or the unconscious or sleeping person, it would still be considered wrong to kill. The other argument for why it is wrong to kill another person is the discontinuation account. This states that what makes killing wrong is discontinuing a life of value (Young, 1979). While the foetus may not yet have a life of value, it is considered that they will at one point, if allowed the

Many times throughout history have people been classified as a hero to others after that person committed murder on their own kindred. Humans kill other humans for various reasons. In a few cases, murder has proven itself to be justified such as the case, for example, when Caligula, the corrupt Roman emperor has been assassinated to further prevent more disasters for the Roman Empire. Murder is justified even for reasons so unthinkable, it makes sense as the culprit, at that moment of time. Although it is generally bad to be spewing bloodshed over your brethren, the act of killing is justified for murder. In the story of “Just Lather, That’s all”, the protagonist of the story, the barber faces a life-changing decision: “Whether to kill, or not to kill Captain Torres”. Captain Torres, the antagonist is an infamous executioner who has made “examples” of rebels. The barber himself, is secretly a rebel, gathering information on Captain Torres. So when the barber was given an opportunity of a lifetime to kill Captain Torres while the latter was unarmed, the barber in the end, chose to not kill him. However in this case, the barber will be viewed as a hero for killing Captain Torres because of three undeniable reasons. The barber will be portrayed as a hero because he will be killing a murderer who murders brutally. The barber will be defending the rebels cause by killing their common enemy. And the barber will be sacrificing his career and personal life for the good of his

What is a ‘valid’ reason to commit murder? Ideally, no answer would truly suffice as from a young age we are taught that killing is morally wrong. Our conscience allows us to rationalise our decisions based on what we believe is morally right. Pauline Parker, a teenage girl born and raised in Christchurch, New Zealand, conspired with close friend Juliet Hulme to murder her mother in 1954. Director Peter Jackson chronicled this case of matricide that shocked the nation in the 1995 film ‘Heavenly Creatures’, which gives us insight into the “twisted mind” of a killer. This is supported by real evidence collected from the trial – a series of explicit diary entries leading up to the murder and Pauline’s surprisingly nonchalant court testimonial.

Is it ever right to kill another human being? Does the circumstances make it even more or less right? Is it okay to kill someone because you are being mistreated, abused, feeling alone? Is it okay to kill someone who raped you? No matter the reasoning, that person is still no longer alive. Does killing ever become right? Never is it ok to kill someone. Taking a life is the ultimate error, and it will leave the average person with depression, guilt, anxiety, fear, and all other emotional distresses. Though it might be necessary to kill someone to protect oneself, it still isn't right. Thinking biologically, however, our instincts tell us to do anything we need in order to preserve our lives and the lives of our offspring. So in the heat of the moment it will seem fine, but later on it will come back to haunt. It's not in our hands to punish others, that's what the government is for, and, that's what prisons are for. Yes, they cost money, but they are there to house as many of society's wrongdoers as possible.

Almost everyone has been stuck in a situation where they were having trouble determining what they should do. In those situations, the actions that are available to them to choose from are either classified by our society as right or wrong. It is obvious to most people what the right option in a situation is as well as why they should choose it, but why do part of those people still choose the wrong option if they are fully aware what they chose is awry.

It would be inaccurate to designate morality as being right or wrong. Although there is a clear separation between right and wrong like there is for white and black, it becomes fuzzy and grey when the situation becomes emotionally or experienced based, or subjective. Overall, we would all agree that taking someone’s life is unacceptable, but there are times when it has been vital. Utilitarianism is based upon the “Greatest Happiness Principle” which states that actions are considered moral when they promote utility, meaning happiness, and immoral when they promote the contrary. The British philosopher John Stuart Mill proposes that morality should be driven by the “Greatest Happiness Principle.” Nonetheless, he also believes that just because an action promotes utility does not make it so that it is moral in his eyes. In order for the action to be considered moral, the person must have made an intentional choice to enhance the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. Mill has strong points about morality, but primarily the “Greatest Happiness Principle” is not a good foundation of morality because it does not consider the nature of a person’s behavior or action. I will begin by arguing that there is a fault in the “Greatest Happiness Principle” since it does not equally take into account a person’s motives, but rather just the consequences. Next, I will argue that is nearly impossible to apply the “Greatest Happiness Principle” because it goes against our natural,

If I were to ask you if killing someone is justifiable, some will answer with a strong no and others like me might say it depends on what they did. However, that is a job for the police to investigate and figure out. No human being kills another without some sort of