The act of killing means to cause death. However, the causing of death does not always denote the act being morally wrong. The act of killing does not automatically equate to murder. Murder is the deliberate and premeditated killing of a human being. Moral justifications can be made to several acts that may contradict the legal or religious views of such an act. The following will rank six acts of killing on a spectrum in terms of morality. Six is the least immoral act and one is the most immoral. After each ranking, there will be an explanation on the moral reasons for its location.
6. Elective Abortion Abortion is a complex issue because the whole argument is usually made reliant on if and when a fetus becomes a human being. This aspect …show more content…
While this is an act of killing, I would argue that this act is not immoral due to the fact that the physician is committing the act with no ill intent and is acting in the interest of the patient’s wishes (Brock, 1992). The aspect that separates active euthanasia from other acts of killing is that it can be entirely justifiable; instead of an act of killing it can be better considered as accelerating the act of letting someone die (Rachel, 1975). The patient is already afflicted with a terminal illness from which they are going to die from in the near future and that is affecting their current quality of life. They have reached a point where they are no longer benefiting from living; instead life is becoming an increasing burden (Brock, 1992). These patients are already in the process of dying so physicians who are helping these patients by offering active euthanasia are just shortening what could be a prolonged painful death. While the physician is killing the patient, it is not done in a malicious manor. Again, the physician is following the wishes of the patient. Autonomy is an important aspect of active euthanasia since self-determination of the choice of wanting to die is a requirement (Brock, 1992). The practice of passive euthanasia such as the refusal of hydration, food or a life-saving procedure is morally acceptable due to the importance of …show more content…
The act of killing in self-defense is deliberate in the fact that a person does an action, either shoots a gun, stabs with a knife, or bludgeons with an object, with the intent to stun, disarm or kill an attacker. However, even if this act results in killing, this act can be justified as it is done when one is in fear for one’s life. There is no premeditation involved in a self-defense killing. It is a sudden spur of the moment decision that results from the fear of being attacked, hurt or killed. In such a situation, it becomes a trade off between whose life is more valuable: the victim’s or the attacker’s. The attacker is already committing a crime, an immoral act, to instigate the feelings of fear into the victim. The victim who feels threatened by the attacker is for the most part the innocent party. If the attacker kills the victim because the victim is not able to fight back due to the moral grounds of killing is wrong, then that will result in an innocent being killed, the most immoral form of killing as I later conclude. If a victim kills an attacker in self-defense, the person who is killed in this situation is not morally innocent. While, any human has the right to not be killed, an attacker with the intent of committing a crime or trying to kill an innocent person has already committed an act of immorality in their premeditation and deliberateness of their attack. The recipient
6. Elective Abortion Abortion is a complex issue because the whole argument is usually made reliant on if and when a fetus becomes a human being. This aspect …show more content…
While this is an act of killing, I would argue that this act is not immoral due to the fact that the physician is committing the act with no ill intent and is acting in the interest of the patient’s wishes (Brock, 1992). The aspect that separates active euthanasia from other acts of killing is that it can be entirely justifiable; instead of an act of killing it can be better considered as accelerating the act of letting someone die (Rachel, 1975). The patient is already afflicted with a terminal illness from which they are going to die from in the near future and that is affecting their current quality of life. They have reached a point where they are no longer benefiting from living; instead life is becoming an increasing burden (Brock, 1992). These patients are already in the process of dying so physicians who are helping these patients by offering active euthanasia are just shortening what could be a prolonged painful death. While the physician is killing the patient, it is not done in a malicious manor. Again, the physician is following the wishes of the patient. Autonomy is an important aspect of active euthanasia since self-determination of the choice of wanting to die is a requirement (Brock, 1992). The practice of passive euthanasia such as the refusal of hydration, food or a life-saving procedure is morally acceptable due to the importance of …show more content…
The act of killing in self-defense is deliberate in the fact that a person does an action, either shoots a gun, stabs with a knife, or bludgeons with an object, with the intent to stun, disarm or kill an attacker. However, even if this act results in killing, this act can be justified as it is done when one is in fear for one’s life. There is no premeditation involved in a self-defense killing. It is a sudden spur of the moment decision that results from the fear of being attacked, hurt or killed. In such a situation, it becomes a trade off between whose life is more valuable: the victim’s or the attacker’s. The attacker is already committing a crime, an immoral act, to instigate the feelings of fear into the victim. The victim who feels threatened by the attacker is for the most part the innocent party. If the attacker kills the victim because the victim is not able to fight back due to the moral grounds of killing is wrong, then that will result in an innocent being killed, the most immoral form of killing as I later conclude. If a victim kills an attacker in self-defense, the person who is killed in this situation is not morally innocent. While, any human has the right to not be killed, an attacker with the intent of committing a crime or trying to kill an innocent person has already committed an act of immorality in their premeditation and deliberateness of their attack. The recipient