is taking a life to save others right?

Answer 1

It would depend on the situation. If you are talking about a defense situation---definitely yes. If we are talking about trading one life for others...that's a little more difficult to justify.

Answer 2

This is actually a very important philosophical question that comes up in the argument of moral utilitarianism vs. absolutism.

A utilitarian might defend the position of taking the life of one person, even an innocent person, to save the lives of multiple people. They would base their case on the utility of the situation (i.e. how much good comes of the situation as a whole).

A moral absolutist might argue that it is never okay to kill, as a universal rule (more likely they would argue it is never okay to kill an innocent). The reason for this would be that it is detrimental to humans as a rule to take the lives of innocents.

So...it depends on which camp you're in. If putting a bullet into one man could stop a riot in which hundreds were being lynched and many killed, would you do it?

Answer 3

It depends on the lives involved, doesn't it? You would have to weigh the needs of the others, and the number of people involved, to decide. If you're talking about taking the lives of lab rats when the research would save thousands of lives, I think the answer is pretty obvious.

Answer 4

It can be. I agree with the guy who said that the victim has to be willfully attacking someone. It wouldn't be right if, say, you would choose to ram someone with your car just because you could see they were about to walk into the street and cause another worse accident. But it would be right if you rammed someone who was firing a gun into cars.

You always have to consider intent, in my opinion, and in my system, anyone who kills or tries to kill someone else, for selfish reasons, forfeits their own life in the moment it is happening (when self-defense or defense of innocents can be a reason to kill them). Sure, you could imagine a hypothetical endless chain of killings from this, but I think it's decent practical ethics.

Answer 5

If you take an innocent life to save another innocent life, what good have you done? If you kill an attacker to save an innocent life, you have committed no crime, or sin. Suppose you encounter a bear while camping with your family. The bear attacks and you kill it. What sin have you committed?

Answer 6

That is far too vague of a question for anyone to give any sort of moral, accurate answer. To generalize, I've never been one of those that thinks all life is equally valuable. To me, the life of a child is far more valuable than that of a convicted murderer. I'd need more details before I could provide a meaningful answer.

Answer 7

Well, jackson_oneill25,

it depends on your point of view.
If you take someones life to save someone you love for example, you think its right, but, the person who's life was taken's family will think it was wrong.
You get what im saying? if no, e-mail me and I will explain it again.

Answer 8

its logical the needs of the many out way the needs of the few but yes its right it may seem harsh to the point of being barbaric when that life is taken against that persons will

Answer 9

It's right under two very important conditions.

The person who is losing their life has to be aware of that risk.
It can only happen in a last-resort, there-is-NO-other-way situation.

Answer 10

Need more information, but I would say yes. Very courageous thing to do if for the right reasons.