In this paper, I will argue that killing is better than letting die if, in general, the intention is compassion rather than gratification. In other words, it is morally permissible to deliberately take action that results in another’s death if the motivation is out of compassion rather than gratification, and that this is significantly better than deliberately failing to take steps which are available and which would have saved another’s life – merely allowing someone to die. (definitions –cite NESBITT) ................ Determining the moral difference between killing and letting die has been a constant debate between many philosophers, with the basis of arguments cemented through the explanation of theoretical cases. However, as Winston Nesbitt states, the ethical theory that one holds determines their personal stance on the issue, and thus although to some extent individual morality is based on and developed by common societal grounds, it is not always clear what is morally correct on the whole.
Capital Punishment Capital Punishment is regarded by most as a successful deterrent to murder, but that is because these people don’t look at it as it is applied. According to retributivists such as Kant and Van Den Haag the guilty deserves to be punished. On the other hand, people against the death penalty like Bedau think that the death penalty is just as much an effective deterrent as life in prison. The most famous retributivist Kant, states that the guilty ought to get punished because they chose to act wrongly, and by punishing them, we are respecting them as a moral agents. This occurs because humans are given the ability to reason and act morally and thus if we don’t punish them we are not treating them as moral agents.
However, killing someone is morally wrong and if everyone could kill then eventually it would lead to almost no one being alive. This is a prime example of when a group has a better reason to hold their belief over ano... ... middle of paper ... ...ind a correct way to judge another’s ethics. In addition to not identifying that some cultures have better reasons to hold their beliefs than others, ethical relativism fails to recognize that not every culture is a well-defined subsection of people. Some individuals belong to multiple cultures, so then which culture holds presidency over the others in determining one’s behavior as moral or immoral? Even though the theory of ethical relativism is rejected by most, it must be acknowledged that it raises important issues that should not be ignored.
Second, those favoring capital punishment contend that society should support those practices that will bring about the greatest balance of good over evil, and capital punishment is one such practice. Capital punishment benefits society because it may deter violent crime. While it is difficult to produce direct evidence to support this claim since, by definition, those who are deterred by the death penalty do not commit murders, common sense tells us that they will die if they perform a certain act, they will be unwilling to perform that act. If the threat of death stays in the hand of a would-be murder, and we abolish the death penalty, we will sacrifice the lives of many innocent victims whose murders could have been deterred. But if, in fact, the death penalty does not deter, and we continue to impose it, we have only sacrificed the lives of convicted murderers.
In order to create a more civilized and morally grounded society, the penalty of death as a means for punishment should be abolished. When first considering arguments against the death penalty, one must first understand the basis of thinking for those who may demand this sort of justice. Immoral actions, for example, illustrate an individual’s ability to act inhuman. Families of the lost loved ones and victims of crimes, for example, feel as though death inflicted upon the guilty party will not heal them from the sorrow and sense of loss they feel. However, because another life may be taken, the death penalty can possibly cause a victim’s family to suffer even more because they feel responsible for the accused criminal’s life as well (Pinker).
This scenario also results in complications outside of the victim and their family. If a person is executed for a crime they did not commit, not only was another life ended for no justifiable reason, but in addition, valuable time and resources were wasted on the wrong person, and the real culprit is still out in the world, continuing to threaten society. Opponents of such punishment may also advocate that the met... ... middle of paper ... ...ason other than their own lust for human blood and suffering, their life should be ended in return. Humans have a moral obligation to rid the world of people who kill or commit other heinous crimes. Killing is an evil act, but when it is committed, the only way to achieve justice is by dealing the killer the same hand they dealt an innocent.
By seeing both sides we can try to come with good solution, as our consequences really matters in the end. The big purpose of Morality is to make the world a better place, but this doesn’t necessarily happen when we only left with one option. Telling a truth can’t be seen in the same balance as telling a lie. They’re both opinions from different human beings. The key difference is when we tell a lie the consequence of that action we took will most likely benefit us, for example A man came to your house asking the whereabouts of your friend, because he wants to kill him/her.
For example, if one has a passion to murder someone then they will decide to kill people. Hume’s views on decision making connect directly to his theory about judgement, because all human perceptions differ when it comes to all things, including murder. Both Aristotle and Hume believe that one can attain the quality of being a virtuous person, but what virtue means is different according to the two philosophers. Aristotle believes one is virtuous when they have found the mean in all things and have achieved the qualities of nobility and kindness. Hume also believes that kindness matters when deeming one virtuous or vile, but Hume does not believe one must find the mean in anything.
The Doctrine of Acts and Omissions holds that it is morally worse to commit an act that brings about a bad event than it would be merely to allow the event to take place by not doing anything to prevent its occurrence. In essence, there is an intrinsic moral difference between acting and the failure to act. In some ways, we bear more responsibility for what comes about as a result of our doing something than for what comes about as a result of our allowing it to happen. A proponent of the Doctrine of Acts and Omissions would say than in certain circumstances, killing is morally worse than letting die. Failing to give aid to someone bleeding out from an accidental amputation is no doubt bad, but surely not as bad as cutting their arm off in the first place.
Allowing humans to suffer is more inhumane than killing. Pros main concerns are that we should have a right to our own body, saves from suffering, alternatives are often worse, and shouldn’t be forced alive. Cons main concerns are legalizing murder, abuse, religions, ethics, and devalues human life. The controversy will still remain whether the argument over freedom of choice and the moral issues is