The Value Of Human Life

Senator for Utah Orrin Hatch once said, “Capital punishment is our society’s recognition of the sanctity of human life,” (Brainy Quote). While the arguments for both sides of the debate over the morality of the death penalty are vast, the bottom line is that the death penalty does not disregard human life, but rather it reveres it, as Hatch said. Morality is defined as, “The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct,” (The Free Dictionary). One who seeks to protect a person who has committed a heinous crime such as murder is arguably not in accords with what is right and wrong. Therefore, although killing is generally accepted as being wrong, the death penalty is sometimes the only solution to bring justice to a

On one end of the argument is the belief that all human lives are of equal merit, because they are humans it gives them equal merit. Therefore no human should ever take the life of another, even if that individual has taken other lives. This argument is mostly favored by people of religious faith, but there are some sensible individuals who also adhere to this as an ethical position. At the other end of the spectrum is an argument in favor of the death penalty because of its ability to get rid of a problematic human so that they will be able to do no more harm. This is a very utilitarianism-like perspective of the death penalty. To examine this perplexing ethical dilemma one must first figure out their stance on what death is, like Socrates would.

This is a big argument that bBy putting someone to death, you’re interfering with these human rights. Although the argument could be made that having someone imprisoned for the rest of their life is more torturous to the person than being put to death, by taking someone’s life, you’re interfering with their right to live. good

Whether innocent or guilty, no one has the right to end someone’s life. As a civilized society, the act of killing someone as

It is often argued that the death penalty should be continued because of the establishment of the eighth amendment. However, the eighth amendment contradicts with the basic human right or “right to life”. The Universal Declaration of Human rights states in Article 3 “Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person.” (United Nations 1). Also, in Article 5 it states “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” (United Nations 1). Therefore, the death

Also, the cost of the death penalty is really high, the cost of keeping someone in jail for life which will cost 600,000 per prisoner and just for one person to be put to death is would cost 2.3 million per prisoner. That is not a logical reason to kill someone then to keep them alive because the cost is three time less to keep a person alive in jail for life then to kill

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

Supporters believe murder for murders is the only way to bring justice, and people would consider the analogy before committing these types of crimes.

The majority of national constitutions and international treaties promote and guarantee the right to life, which demands that not even a single individual or body has the power to take another person’s life. The only exception that the previously mentioned provides is where there is an act of self-defence or war. Sine capital punishment does not fall under any of the exceptions what so ever; it falls under the classification of murder committed by the State. According to the majority of capital punishment critics, life falls into the category of unalienable rights. As a result, one cannot forfeit another’s right to life just because they have committed an

Many criminals take the lives of or hurt many people around them. They are later released after doing time in prisons to go on the streets again where they will do the same things over again. "[W]e reserve the death penalty in the United States for the most heinous murders and the most brutal and conscienceless murderers. To sentence killers like those described above to less than death would fail to do justice because the penalty – presumably a long period in prison – would be grossly disproportionate to the heinousness of the crime. Prosecutors, jurors, and the loved ones of murder victims understand this essential point…” Death penalty does the justice right for seriously violent criminals instead of having them do time in prisons to be released.

Many strong cases can be made in principle for and against capital punishment. The argument that is in favor is based on justice, and the nature of a moral community, which requires that each person has to respect the life and liberty of others. Those who commit vicious crimes immediately

For example, the murder of an innocent person could never be justified even if it is for the welfare of someone else’s

The case for capital punishment can best be understood by examining the opposition's arguments against capital punishment. Opponents of capital punishment say the death penalty does not deter crime and is cruel and unusual. Opponents may also argue that capital punishment is a blood thirsty judicial homicide that benefits no one. Are they right to believe a murderer is entitled to our sympathy?

The opposition of capital punishment stems from several reasonable arguments concerning our rights as humans as well as our fallacies. Opponents of execution often argue that killing someone on the basis of legal justice is simply another immoral taking of a life, which in turn raises the question: how valuable is human life? This question is something that is difficult to answer, but I believe that the value of human life is inherit. I also believe that said value can decrease in accordance with one’s actions. Should the life of a child-rapist be equal to that of a community leader? Do they both deserve equally to live? If one discusses this topic, they

From a utilitarian perspective, one would argue in favor of every being having rights and that those rights should not be infringed upon because every being is considered morally equal. A utilitarian would argue that “everyone counts, and everyone counts equally” (Shafer-Landau, 132). If everyone counts equally, then infants, the insane, and nonhuman animals deserve the same respect and rights just as any other member of the moral community. As moral equals, every member’s interests and rights should be valued at the same level as a human being’s. While some cannot verbally communicate their interests and rights, they should still