Killing another human is always wrong?

Question

i really need sum help =[ i got this essay to do and my teacher is a pain in the butt shes not really any help...i need 2 rite an argument for and against that statement...so can anyone give me sum ideas?

Answer 1

not always....
If the only way to stop someone from, say, killing you (or a member of your family) is to kill him...then it is not wrong at all!!!

Answer 2

Whenever a statement involves the word "always", I usually find that there are exceptions.

The idea that killing another person as always being wrong is a very peaceful approach to problems. People who believe this believe that war and crime can be solved thru other measures. Mostly thru communication and understanding. It is true that this approach will solve many problems. Diplomacy should come first. A shoot first, ask questions later approach will kill many innocent people.

However, sometimes it is necessary to kill another person. Most situations that people will give you will be the crazy killer about to kill you or your family. You can stop a crazy killer without killing them but the idea is that this person will probably kill someone you care about before you can stop anything. Throughout history, there have been examples of people having to kill another out of survival. I have read accounts of shipwrecked sailors killing wounded members of their crew to preserve rations. In the end the sailors barely survived and their actions did indead save their lives (The story of the whaling boat Essex is one like this).

The idea that killing is never necessary depends on the idea that humans are always rational and that there is always another solution. Once again, my point about the word "always" comes around again. It does not take much thinking to find exceptions to these statements. Even if there is another solution, it is not always possible to find it in time.

Answer 3

If you mean in terms of capital punishment;
FOR- 1.As the bible sates an eye for an eye....
2.It removes the worst criminals like ian huntley bradey
yorkshire ripper etc.
3.Its a deterent(stop other doing crime)
4.Crime rate will go down
5.Prisons wont be over crowded
6.money will be saved
7.retribution

AGAINST
1.If a person is wrongley accused an person is killed
2.there is no humane way of killing some one
3.The effect it can have on the 'criminal's' family if they are innocent
4.the bible staes that every life if sacred
5.who are we to play god
6.Capital punishment is tantamount to a repudiation of the divine nature of man. On what principles of religion or philosophy can we justify the policy of depriving a human being like ourselves of all possibility of reform.
hope this is helpful.xx

Answer 4

For: human life is sacred, if no one killed others there'd be peace in the world, etc etc etc. say that the person can be arrested.

Against: if an agressor threatens serious harm to person(s) or object(s) you consider more valuable than the agressor, it's ok to kill them.

I'm against that statement. Empathy is good, but like anything else, you have to find a balance. you shouldn't go around killing people for no reason, but at the same time caring too much about an agressor will hamper survival.

Answer 5

For: corporal punishment in jails clears the huge number of prisoners and deters other from repeating the same crimes. Serious lingering illness like painful cancer is a mercy killing (we treat animals better by not letting them suffer). Accidental killing is not wrong it is in an accident.

Against: Murder is wrong no matter who is the killer because you are chosing to end someones life before nature intended. Killing unborn babies is wrong because the child didn't have a voice in the decision.

Answer 6

You really need some help with your spelling and grammar first dude.

Why not go down the old road of killing a human who is dying of terminal illness is right because it eases suffering - and then contrast that against someone dying might not be in the best position to decide if they should die or be killed or not ?

Answer 7

Those who believe in absolute values would say this is the case. They might believe that God has said in his commandments it is wrong. They just might believe from a humanist point of view in the sanctity of life.

Others who believe in relative values and engage in what is called situation ethics would say that on occasions it is justified - llike shooting someone who was about to kill a roomfull of people. They would say on occasions like this the death of the one is justified and that killing them was not wrong.

Yet others might believe that while it is always wrong to kill someone else that sometimes you have to choose between the lesser of two evils. They would kill the bomber, lets say from the above situation, but believe in doing so they were committing a sin - or doing wrong - but doing something that was necessary. Dietrich Bonhoeffer (A German Christian in WWII) took this point of view when he was involved in the plot to try and kill Adolph Hitler. He didn't think killing was ever right - but sometimes the situation demanded that you had to "sin boldly".

Hope this helps

Answer 8

Not in defense of you life or the life of another. However the whole argument for capital punishment is even more ridiculous....you cant kill a human...only the government can kill a human. then its ok cause its cheaper than housing them. LOL whatever.

Answer 9

not always wrong....for instants killing a person to stop them blowing up 2000 people.... If you think along these lines then you might do your essay 'by yourself' or you will never learn to think for yourself.

Answer 10

the statement is erronous on moral and ethical levels.
To kill to save your own life or a loved one is the ultimate altruism.
Unforuanately, this can be extended to protect us from possible death, like the pre emptive strikes of the Bush Administration.

Answer 11

Not always, there is such a things as: Justifiable Homicide, Mercy Killing, War or Police actions...