Is it ever right to take another life?

Question

Alright, lets think of this non-religiously, please.

Now, we "put down" animals when they are in intense pain and sometimes even when they are unwanted. We also sentence and go through with the death penalty. Yet, we are against abortions, euthanizing of humans and suicide (I added that for completeness).

So, considering those instances and any others that I couldn't think of, what's the difference? Why is killing a man who is in prison better than allowing someone to die peacefully instead of living in pain for the rest of their lives.

Answer 1

Yes it is sometimes right to take another life. Each case is unique and there are no hard and fast rules. I think the best guidence is to look at the benefit and the drawback. If a terminally ill person does not wish to suffer further and decides that death is a benefit, it falls to us to question that person, try to ease the pain, etc. If, in the end they decide death is preferable. Then it can be right.

If someone is a danger to the others, they must be stopped. It is preferable to restrain them (prison) but if they cannot be controlled, they must be put down like any other dangerous animal.

Keep in mind that all right and wrong are purely relative. To a murderer, being put to death isn't necessarily a good thing. To a relative of his victim, it may be.

Answer 2

Ok. You asked a good question and molded it complete. Is it right to take another life? I have been in and out of Q&A and have seen the question, "What's the meaning of life?" a million times. The answer you seek can best be referred to another question, "What is life?"
As you stated, we euthanize animals for lack of useful or effective treatment. Or perhaps they are just unwanted. Look at the forests and front yards, trees and plants of all kinds. They are alive, but are they life? It would be easy to confuse the concept of 'life' with 'A life'. That is not the case here. 'A' life is any common existence balanced with purpose. Life itself is more difficult to define. Especially when you add the concept of power over that life. To allow it to continue or destroy it.
Animals are an instrument of beings that are set aside as part of a lower food chain. Although very few people feel that way after being attacked by a lion or bear or some other 'so-called' lesser life form. The sad truth there is that animals are usually put down out of mercy. Very few domestic animals would be set free into a city where they would be eventually killed by a passing motorist who just didn't see him. Or they would live there life in garbage cans and never be appreciated or loved again. If they are already sick, a bigger favor is done. Justifiable? I think so.
Abortions are a whole other story. The taking of an innocent life is, by judicial ruling, a crime.
That's why so many people fight the abortion process so aggressively. The life taken is considered innocent and unworthy of death yet, the life form itself has never had a chance to prove itself one way or another. We then 'presume' the life to be innocent. Am I pro abortion? No. But if my friend were to make the decision to abort, I would not turn my back on her.
In the case of the prisoner, they have had their chance to be worthy citizens and threw it away. For what ever cause they have demonstrated that the death of one is less than their own life. By making that decision they in turn place themselves at the mercy of judgment as to whether their life is worth more, allowing them to live, or less than the life they took. Death penalty
Suicide is a horrible thing. I know people who have done it. I also know they did it out of depression and despair. Was it a good thing? No. However, I do not blame them for their action. I merely feel sorry for them.
As for the controlled suicide, i e; Doctors taking a life by choice of a patient. I would not dare pretend to say that a person should live in suffering. I see people in nursing homes and I can see the sadness they feel. They live, waiting to die. I personally see no wrong in a patient choosing to die, but only as a last resort. After all, how many people have signed paperwork indicating they were not to be kept alive by artificial means? Isn't that the same thing?
Back to the question. 'Is it ever RIGHT to take another life?' Like the meaning of life, that is a question that will be asked for generations, yet never truly answered. In the case of judgment or self defense? Perhaps. As for any other, the mercies of mankind and God are immeasurable.
Each must be allowed to decide what is life for their selves. Mercy or murder is the difference

Answer 3

I agree with you. There are times when acting to bring death is not "killing" in the immoral sense at all, because it ends suffering or just is overall more merciful to everybody. I don't think any other position can be justified except by blind adherence to dogma combined with a lack of compassion. Especially for those who support execution -- then it's even blatant hypocrisy.

However, if we say mercy is our priority, it's a judgment call each time, about what is the most merciful solution to any problem; and wherever there is disagreement among actual sufferers or their family members, to err on the side of caution is probably best. In most such ambiguous situations, I think that the person and their family should be the ONLY ones who have ANY say about the matter.

Answer 4

I don't think so. Unless it was out of self-defense, or they were about to kill someone you cared about or something.

I don't believe in the death penalty. The difference, though, is that some people don't believe there's been justice done if the person is still alive. Also, there's always the chance that they could escape.

Answer 5

Babies in the womb are innocent and don't deserve death like the murderers we execute.Why should we feed and clothe some guy who may have killed someone close to you or me?He will have a great life .They all get drugs and sex and three meals a day.They don't think the same as most folks.

Answer 6

That's a question we should ask George W Bush.

Why did Bush wait until the start of a new Democratic Congress to announce his death warrant on American GIs? Does he think he has a right to take another's life? Apparently, Bush thinks that he is King and can do whatever he wants.

Part of it, no doubt, was that Cheney needed time to fire the vocally dissenting generals, whip the Joints Chiefs of Staff – who unanimously opposed the idea – into silence, and try to figure out a way to find additional cannon fodder to send to their doom, since the military and reserves have been so depleted by the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld Iraq war folly.

But part of the reason for the timing of the "official’ announcement of another doomed military action – basically a variation on a theme of years of disastrous "plans" — had to do with drowning out the accomplishments of the first 100 hours of a Democratic Congress.

Do you think Rove was going to let the Democrats get the message out that they could pass minimum wage, stem cell research, homeland security, student loan relief and competitive bidding for Medicare drug laws – among others – without diverting news coverage?

Bush is a liar. He tries hard to project the iron will of a great leader with his ****** eyebrows and steadfast gaze, but he is what he is: a little man drunk on power who slurs his speech. While oilman Cheney smirks in the background, the tinpot “war president” marches up to the podium and scolds the world day after day, year after year. We can’t take it anymore. Scores of books, articles, and documentaries have come out recently, written by investigative journalists, impartial historians, and other serious researchers who are all trying to document this huge deception for posterity. Painful as it is, finding out what happened before the trail grows cold is essential for the long-term health of our republic.

Why is it so hard to learn the truth? Already, partisan pundits and corporate-media types are distorting the public record. The United States ranked 53rd last year on the “Worldwide Press Freedom Index” (Reporters without Borders)—a sober reminder of how easy it is to repress in-depth reporting and replace it with jumbled-up sound bites on splashy, “infotainment” news. Thomas Jefferson lectured throughout his life on why democracy wouldn’t survive unless people are well informed, why the masses couldn’t rule themselves intelligently if they couldn’t vote intelligently.

The trend nowadays is to use focus groups to divine the will of the people. That’s a good thing, since according to the Constitution, politicians are elected not as leaders but as representatives of the people’s will. The problem is that sleazy politicians and their hacks can unfairly manipulate this invaluable data by pouring money into the media machine and spinning facts to support their unpopular ideologies in a cynical attempt to influence the sentiments of the electorate. It’s called lying.

To “move forward,” why don’t we start with the truth instead of the lie? Iraq is more about the politics of oil and corporate greed than of terror. Are we now to waste even more blood and treasure over this failed, dishonest policy? It is time we admit our mistake, quit occupying Arab holy lands, and wean our economy off oil. That is the only sane approach to all this madness. The last three decades since Carter, and the hundreds of billions spent fighting in the Middle East and subsidizing the oil industry, could have been used for research and development of alternative energy. Why does Washington bow to these kings of greed while ignoring middleclass values and American ingenuity? At what cost have corrupt politicians dishonored the namesake of our capitol?

Answer 7

No body rest in this life , we need to work and do what we must to do in this life to die , and after die there is another life .. not nice life if you don't do fine in this life , and you will have Greate life and rest if you know you're real god and do every thing for him and do what him tell you to do , you will get rest for ever when you die if you do good with you're god .....





And i am sorry about my lang ...

Answer 8

Yes, killing in self defense is justified.
Your second paragraph is a nonsequitur, there is no relationship in the two examples given.

Answer 9

No, but 'right' is man made and changes as the Judgment changes. The Will is positive, the Judgment is negative.

Answer 10

Those that oppose the last three, oppose the first ones as well. It's the thinking of those that support the first but oppose the last that bother me.