Is it ever right to kill?
What is Killing?
What is killing? Well the dictionary definition is: to cause death/the act of causing death. But is that enough? I s there another type of killing? A type that is justifiable. For example if a person steals or puts you in mortal danger is it acceptable to take their life in return? But more importantly is it morally right?
In this journey I hope to answer all these questions if not more, but also explore the views of theists, atheists and agnostics this kind of study (of morals, virtues and ethics) is called Deontological study.
Sometimes it is “tolerable” to kill in dire consequences and extreme conditions, the people who follow ethics that are variable are called Relativists and the people who stick with their rules through-and-through are known as absolutists, as they are absolute with their rules.
In Some religions if you kill you are branded as a “sinner” for life and have to live your life in shame, however in some, so called “religions” it is their duty to convert and they don’t care how they do it. This group of people are often called fanatics or extremists for an obvious reason. Absolute or relative?
In the world there are two types of ethical beings; on one side we have relative ethics and on the other we have the absolute ethics. The two “sects” have different ways of life. Relative ethics are a set of moral rules that are only to be broken if at the cost of lives. Absolute ethics state that you should never break the moral code even if you are to die, which I think you will agree is pretty extreme.
For example, imagine a scenario two Buddhist’s, one is a relativist and the other is an absolutist. The ethics of Buddha clearly states, “Refrain from destroying living creatures” but in the same scenario there would have been two different consequences the relativist’s name, in this case is Bob and the absolutist’s name is Jim. Lets see how they cope with this scenario:
Bob was peacefully sauntering down the pavement enjoying the sun the shining down lighting up his face, suddenly a man clad in black wearing a balaclava tackled Bob to the floor the assailants hands were clammy and Bob struggled to get free. He spied a small sharp stone not very far from the attackers leg. His only chance was to stab him and injure him before the rogue could do any further damage. He quickly took his chance, all Bob could hear was a sickening crunch, by this time the police would have already intervened and the attacker was arrested and it turned out to be a racial attack . Bob was commemorated in the paper and they all lived “happily ever after” apart from the balaclava boy.
Jim like Bob was also walking down the pavement and also was attacked by a fascist gasbag but unfortunately being an absolutist Jim had know means of aggression or self-defence he couldn’t cause his assailant any bodily harm and so suffered grievous pain after that incident he later died in hospital, no one was there at his funeral.
Life is not just like this of course as even the same act in the lifestyle of today could lead to two different outcomes. You just need to be at the right time in the right place.
Unfair Vs Fair
This chapter is all about the same action and always a different reaction, for example if you are a soldier it is tour duty and kill. The job that has been taken compels you to kill or be killed, however on the street if you kill another human being and cannot prove to be in self defence you will now find stories that are of people being killed of what you know already I would like you to decide.
Relatives and friends of Jean Charles de Menezes, the Brazilian man shot by police in London, have expressed their grief, shock and anger at the killing. His London-based cousin, Alex Pereira, paid tribute to him but sharply criticised authorities for the error. His grandmother said there was no reason for considering him a terrorist. The...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document