Ethics: Theory and Practice Jacques P. Thiroux Keith W. Krasemann

The Taking of Human Life Chapter Nine The Taking of Human Life

Suicide The five basic moral principles can be applied to situations involving taking human life Suicide An intentional taking of one’s life It is questionable whether suicide is moral or immoral

Arguments Against the Morality of Suicide Suicide is always irrational There is evidence, however, that although it is an irrational act in some cases, in others it is not The religious argument states that only God can create or end life Applies only to members of a specific religion with that belief Is theologically questionable Removes human responsibility

Arguments Against the Morality of Suicide The domino argument states that if suicide is allowed, then other forms of murder will follow This argument is worthy of consideration There is, however, no conclusive evidence to support it The justice argument questions whether suicide is fair to survivors of the victim

Arguments for the Morality of Suicide A person has rights over his or her own body and life A person should have the freedom to make decisions concerning his or her own body and life It is entirely up to individual human beings to decide whether their own lives are worth living Does anyone have absolute right over body/life?

Defense of the Innocent (The Self Included) It is questionable whether killing someone in defense of the innocent (one’s self included) is moral or immoral

Defense of the Innocent (The Self Included) One main argument against the morality of such an act: The taking of a human life is always wrong This argument doesn’t recognize the complexities of human existence or that some humans are capable or violating all moral principles

Defense of the Innocent (The Self Included) There are arguments for the morality of killing in defense of the innocent People have rights and obligations to protect innocent lives (their own included) The good defending the innocent far outweighs the bad of killing a murderer of innocent people The main criticism of these arguments is that violence breeds violence (domino argument)

War It is questionable if war is moral or immoral Arguments against war: It is a direct and massive violation of the Value of Life principle, especially when nuclear weapons are used It causes a great deal of useless killing, especially of innocent noncombatants

War Arguments against war (cont’d): The destruction caused by war far outweighs the gain The solution is to deal with aggression and violence through peaceful means – to pacify one’s enemy through nonviolence

War There are arguments for the morality of war: War is the best controller of overpopulation It is the “mother of invention” It is a great unifying factor and economic boon for individual nations War sometimes is a “necessary evil” – the morally just war does exist

The Indefensibility of Nuclear War Given the devastation possible in a nuclear war, most arguments, including the just war argument, cannot support a nuclear holocaust Such a war is indefensible

Terrorism Terrorism is an old and very destructive method of making war Definition “War deliberately waged against civilians” One of the most difficult aspects of terrorism is the injury and death of hundreds of innocent people and the destruction of property

Arguments in Support of Terrorism When people are oppressed or angry about their lot in life, and nonviolent means haven’t worked for them, they feel they must resort to violence Innocents may be killed, but the terrorist’s cause is more important

Arguments Against Terrorism Excessive violence, especially when it involves the loss or mutilation of the lives of innocent people, cannot be condoned Terrorism does not fall under any definition of a “morally just war”

The Semantics of Terrorism and Double Standards The semantics of terrorism in public discourse reveals two double standards: An “us versus them” mentality A framework that condemns the actions of nonstate actors, but also condones similar acts committed by agents of the state – especially one’s own state

Capital Punishment Definition Theories of Punishment: Punishment, usually death, that is imposed in response to certain “capital crimes” such as murder, kidnapping, rape, and torture Theories of Punishment: Retributive or deserts theory: Punishment should be given only when it is deserved and to the extent it is deserved

Capital Punishment Theories of Punishment (cont’d): Utilitarian or results theory: Punishment is justified only if it will bring about good consequences for everyone

Capital Punishment Theories of Punishment (cont’d): Restitution or compensation theory: Punishment is justified only if it will bring about good consequences for everyone Capital punishment could conceivably be acceptable in all of the preceding theories in some cases

Arguments Against the Morality of Capital Punishment It is a direct violation of the Value of Life principle – a “murder” planned and executed by society It doesn’t bring back the killer’s victims or in any other way, other than vengeance or recompense the survivors of the victim There is no conclusive proof that it is a deterrent

Arguments Against the Morality of Capital Punishment It is possible to wrongly execute an innocent person; and rich people who can afford good lawyers are less frequently subject to capital punishment than are the poor and members of minority races Capital punishment eliminates any possibility of rehabilitation and adds the cost of the killer’s life to that of his or her victims

Arguments for the Morality of Capital Punishment It is clearly a deterrent for the killer, who is put to death, but it also deters others who are contemplating murder It is less costly than imprisonment (critics question this), and there is no reason to make innocent, hardworking taxpayers pay for the upkeep of a guilty killer It puts real teeth into laws, given them force and sanction – encourages obedience

Arguments for the Morality of Capital Punishment A person who has killed has forfeited his or her right to be treated ethically; therefore, taking such a person’s life is not immoral Rehabilitation often is infeasible if not impossible, especially when one is dealing with serial and mutilating killers It is only fair that killers should pay with their own lives for having taken the lives of others