The Morality of Taking a Life
This is an excerpt from the paper...
Is it morally wrong in every case to kill another human being, or are there instances in which taking another human being's life is justified? Moral philosophers have wrestled with this issue for centuries. The issue may be couched as directly as it is above--that killing is morally wrong--or it may center on specific instances which some believe alter the moral equation, such as in war, for purposes of euthanasia, or most recently, with reference to the issue of abortion. Of course, the latter involves the further question of when human life begins so that the killing of a fetus can be considered the killing of a human being. The Bible addresses the issue and does not produce as complete or direct an answer as one might think, and the utilitarian Jeremy Bentham also offers a somewhat clouded picture with different interpretations possible. Clearly, the issue is not such as always to produce a clear statement of what is morally right and wrong.The first abjuration against killing occurs in Exodus, and it is directed specifically at the killing of the innocent, which says, "The innocent and just person you shall not put to death." This is taken by many to refer to homicide, but the law has usually been interpreted to mean that no one shall be killed who does not deserve to die, including oneself: Relative to modern law and morality, the primitive Israelite law on killing was crude and inarticulate, and by itself, it could not stand as an adequate moral norm for us today
. . .
was a homicide which had no previous enmity (deuteronomy 19:1-7). Jesus also seems to have been against killing in any form. With reference to the death penalty for transgressing certain laws, Jesus said with reference to an adulteress, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" (John 8:2-11). Jesus taught his disciples about punishment and referred to the teaching of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" and told them that instead of following that precept, they should turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:38-39) (Elwell, 1984, 191).
Jeremy Bentham's utilitarianism is based on the perception that the human being is governed by the opposing principles of pleasure and pain: "It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do" (in Rogerson, 1991, 31). Bentham offers the principle of utility as the foundation for his philosophy of utilitarianism and for the ethical considerations that flow from it. Bentham is in fact interested not merely in showing that human action derives from a desire for pleasure and a fear of pain. He is also interested in developing a set of objective criteria of morality and for making moral decisions regarding human actions. Pain and pleasure are the d
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Jeremy Bentham's, Jeremy Bentham, Reference Bible, , Tauer CA, Publishers Bentham, Elwell WA, Donceelm JE, Barry RL, Rogerson KF, death penalty, principle utility, pleasure pain, thou shalt, shalt kill, god commanded, thou shalt kill, bentham 1948, capital punishment, catholicism pb jung, commanded thou, law actually, pernicious act committed, ta shannon eds, jung ta shannon,
Approximate Word count = 1711
Approximate Pages = 7 (250 words per page)
More Essays on The Morality of Taking a Life
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
