Every human being has his or her purpose on earth, which out rightly makes killing wrong and in the sanctity of human life. The primary question of debate is: Is it morally wrong to kill someone? The question has become a center of intense discussions on what exactly makes it wrong to kill a human being. It is evident that the question seems strange on its own but is downright bizarre when asked within the journal of medical ethics. It can be said that killing is morally wrong to an extent where it reduces happiness or even creates misery. Most people have held onto the idea that it is wrong to kill people while there are those who believe that it is wrong in every circumstance while others think in particular cases some killing might be justified. The essay will argue that killing can only be justified with the aim of avoiding a greater evil. A common point of view is related to the idea that sanctity of life’s principle should be integrated with the desirable moral system’s principles. Therefore, to evaluate the point of view that life is sacred, the essay will focus on the direct objections to killing. Direct objections to killing relate to an individual killed. The paper will argue that killing someone is morally wrong and to support the argument; the analysis will focus on the concept of the sanctity of life.
Taking life is believed to be intrinsically wrong because the status of being alive is inherently valuable. The assertion perhaps rises to the argument’s level for the sanctity of life because it states that there is always greater value in what killing takes away. It is true that life has value, however, when an individual is not desperately miserable, it can have more value. There are those who belie that being alive, even in a situation of unconsciousness, are intrinsically valuable. However, this might be different and unappealing to individuals who personally perceive life of permanent coma where there are no means suitable to death. Further, based on the subjective point of view, it is clear that there is absolutely nothing to pick between the two. According to Schopenhauer, he approached the concept clearly when he focused on the destruction of the body and stated that this destruction is felt within the evils of old age or even sickness. For the subject, the concept of death apparently entails merely within the moment when the consciousness vanishes since the brain activity ceases. For those who hold onto the view that direct objection to killing is related to death considered from an individual murdered, they will apparently consider it reasonable to find life as having greater value barely as a necessary provision for consciousness.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
It is important to test whether or not an individual’s life is worth living is whether he or she wants to go on living. Individuals would not wish to have themselves killed if it is worth living but on the other hand, they might not want to lengthen their life when they feel that it is not worth living. For instance, in transitory depression moods, a person who often obtains a lot from life might wish to commit suicide. Most people fear death; therefore, they might wish they had never been born but still would not wish to die. However, it is important to note that a person’s wish to die or live is not a clear signal to establish he or she has a life worth living. For those who are believed to have lives worth living, the relative strength of their desire to live might not be a precise indicator of how worthwhile they find their lives. For an individual who has ultimately lost hope is disappointed but might cling to life as tenaciously as the happiest person globally. When focusing on the issue whether a person's life is worth living at, his or her perspective will be a clear evidence of the overwhelmingly powerful kind.
It is wrong to kill a person because it is wrong to destroy any form of life that is believed to be worth living. An apparent objection to killing, in this case, is related to the fact that it is wrong to shorten life that is considered to be worthy. Most people, who think about their own lives, often believe that the length of life is desirable, but others consider the number of years that they have is of no significance at all the quality of their lives being all that matters. One of the good reasons why longer life is believed to be better than a shorter one is that the quality of life of an individual is not entirely independent of its length because numerous plans and projects might not be worth undertaking without having a good chance of time for their ultimate fulfillment. Further, every person often holds onto the idea that more of a good is often better than less of it. It is thus always reasonable to want to prolong life when it is worth living.
Being human is believed to be intrinsically valuable. Studies have shown that objection to killing a person should not entirely rest on the concept of speciesism where life is treated as having a special priority over the animal life based on the notion that it is human. Such an analog often is associated with racism where individuals of the particular race should be treated differently because of their race’s membership without necessarily referring to the unique features of that specific race. Such an argument is objectionable as a result of its moral arbitrariness. Additionally for the individuals who are concerned about reforming the treatment of animals often emphasizes that speciesism exhibits similar arbitrariness. It is ultimately wrong to treat a creature less well based on the notion that it is not a member of our species. It is thus critical that a sufficient justification ought to cite essential differences between the species.
In conclusion, killing is wrong, but in exceptional justification, an individual might be killed. The sanctity of life proponents often focuses on the important aspects since they often and not merely because they are only the factors that are valuable. It is wrong to kill since it reduces the society’s respect for life since it might result in rising rates on murder euthanasia or even genocide thus making abortion or killing wrong. Abortion or killing should thus be illegal, just as murder is to avoid possible consequences that might emerge as a result of legalizing abortion including euthanasia. The essay has approached the topic whether killing is right using the direct objections to killing. Based on the above analysis, it is clear that killing is morally wrong because it goes against the sanctity of life. A preventive Killing aspect often rises in various setting. For the individual who strongly affirms the equality condition of the sanctity of life, taking a life of an individual to save the life of one person is not a good deal even in situations where it is allowable as is the case with self-defense. However, the act of killing to save more lives is considered to be excruciating in particular since the principles do not forbid it. Based on this argument, it becomes evident that killing is morally wrong based on the above reasons. In a general term, the killing can only be considered as justifiable in a situation where it is critical to avoid a greater evil.
