Is it right to kill?
Is it right to kill? This ethical question has been asked throughout time, I believe there is no straight forward answer for it, and this a debateable question as it can change according to the situation. Many people have different opinions and views on if killing is right or wrong. In this essay I will be explaining whether I believe if killing is right.
There are several groups of people who share different views on this question and make their decision on killing someone depending on rules, motives and consequence. There is one group who base their decisions on consequences, they are called utilitarian’s, they are a group of people that act in a way that brings about the most amount of happiness for the most
…show more content…
This is why many are against utilitarian’s.
Another group is relatives, a relative would look at the situation and depending on the situation would decide whether it is right to kill someone or not. An example to show this is Tony Nicklinson, he suffered with lock syndrome, and lock syndrome is a condition where you cannot move or talk. To communicate with others, a person would hold up a letter and he would look at one of the letters and spell out a word or interact with others in this way. This condition caused pain and suffering, he wanted to kill himself, but because of his condition he was unable to do anything. So he wanted his wife to do it, as he could not take the pain any longer. His wife did not want him to suffer anymore, so she agreed to it, but she did not want to do it as it would count as murder and she did not want to be sent to jail. Tony’s family then sent a letter to the prime minster requesting if his wife could kill him to put him out of his pain and misery. David Cameron refused the letter and let Tony starve so that he died in August 2012. In this type of situation a relative would disagree with Cameron, and say yes to his wife killing her husband because of his condition. Whereas an absolutists would agree with David Cameron as they say no one should ever be killed no matter what. In this sort of situation a utilitarian would be quite confused to do as there is only one person involved, but would probably agree
Whether innocent or guilty, no one has the right to end someone’s life. As a civilized society, the act of killing someone as
(6)You should not kill an innocent (friendless but healthy) person EVEN IF by doing so (and giving his organs to several others) you could increase net happiness.
If someone in your family was in coma and the doctor said it was very unlikely, almost impossible that they will come out of it and it is your choice to let them continue to let them suffer or die with no pain. Or if you were suffering and the suffering with a terminal disease and was given a choice for assisted suicide. In certain situations such as assisted suicide, euthanasia, and in George and Lennie's case killing another is justifiable.
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.
Do people deserve to die? This is the question that society has had us ask ourselves for many years. The speaker argues that the real question surrounding the death penalty is, “Do we deserve to kill?”
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?
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.
It is cruel to kill a person no matter how horrible the crime they committed is. It shows people that if you do something, the same will be done to you, it is an eye for an eye. This type of justice is completely wrong. The punishment should be geared not only towards scaring others from committing a similar crime, but also to correct the offender and reintegrate him/her back to the society. Therefore, punishment by death does not achieve this objective in any way.
Now, in order to truly look at the topic at hand, I feel that it is necessary to examine a few different viewpoints when it comes to this ethical issue. These viewpoints are called deontological, and utilitarianism. Each approach provides a unique look in the idea of capital punishment and will help to look at the consequences at the present time, as well as in the future. The question of whether it is ethically acceptable to take the life of someone is at the heart
Capital punishment, otherwise known as the death penalty, is a controversial subject which has been argued for decades due to the ethical decisions involved. People believe the death penalty is the right thing to do and that it is the perfect example of ‘justice’ while others believe that it is immoral and overly expensive. The death penalty is not a logical sentence for criminals, it doesn’t give them the right type of justice and it is immoral.
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
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.
In society there many things that are debated among the people based on their beliefs, morals, and values. For this paper chose the death penalty because it is one of the highly debated topics in not only today’s society but also in the past. The death penalty, also known as capital punishment, it used as a procedure of retaliation against those who commit violent crimes such as murder and other capital crimes. There are many forms of this punishment, for instance, the electric chair, lethal injections, and the firing squad. There are many feelings and arguments in relation to capital punishment. Some people believe that the death penalty is moral because they deserve it and it provides protection to the society. However, in this paper I will argue that capital punishment is totally immoral because it is not fair, is it unnecessary, and unethical.
I am going to answer these two questions in this essay. They are “Do you think that the right to life entails a right to die under certain circumstances?” and “Should the laws be changed to grant a universal right to voluntary euthanasia?”. In this essay, I am going to give reasons using ethical theories to justify these questions.
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