Free Essay

Killing for Human Life

In: English and Literature

Submitted By jcrespoe1
Words 2129
Pages 9
Emmanuel J. Crespo
Ms. Coleman
Honors World Literature
April 13, 2016
Killing for Human Life
An analysis of the justification for criminality with the argument that it will better humanity in Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment. Crime towards humanity has never been rightly justified, but it seems as if the crime towards humanity misinterprets the goal of the crime. Criminals would like to believe that their crimes were done for humanity rather than towards humanity. Fyodor Dostoevsky exposes the argument of bettering humanity as a scapegoat for criminality in his novel, Crime and Punishment.
The wealthy and those in poverty have had a strong dissonance for hundreds of thousands of years, usually caused by envy and frustration of the poor and the arrogance and lack of empathy of the rich. Raskolnikov, frustrated that he could not finish his studies in law and had to drop out of law school, has grown a type of soft hatred to the pawnbroker, Alyona Ivanovna. Due to her wealth and unfair treatment to the people that pawn items to her, Raskolnikov undoubtedly turns his soft hate into violent thoughts. He envisioned murdering her and taking her money, but the moral side of him always brought a sense of disgust to his own thoughts, and Raskolnikov would not want to go through with the crime. Although he tried to take the idea off his mind, the struggle of him having owe the landlady dues as well as him already behind on payments, Raskolnikov’s thought turned to a plan, but he still could not go through with it. Raskolnikov needed a good reason in committing the crime that would not come out as purely selfish. There was a consistency of the thought of humanity that always seemed to spark his plan back on his mind and Raskolnikov would once again envision himself doing the crime. In the novel, Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov says, “Kill her, take her money and with the help of it devote oneself to the service of humanity and the good of all.” (Dostoevsky 68). To devote oneself to humanity does not grant the pass for a murder, but it seemingly shows how clouded people’s judgement becomes if a reason to rationalize a crime arises in their favor. Criminal activities has revolutionized from thousands of years ago to the present day. The act of killing a person once had a glorified view and acceptance in the ancient times and by the society of the time. Although this had evolved into a norm during those times, societies influenced those norms highly from their beliefs, such as their culture, primarily based on their religion. A review article from the BioMed Research International clearly states “The practice of human sacrifice has been known to occur cross-culturally throughout history. Humans have been sacrificed in order to celebrate special events, […] to atone for sins committed, […] and to ensure fertility and health.” (Ceruti 1). A sacrifice to God or the gods did not cause uproar then, but rather a positive response because if humanity pleased God or the gods, then humanity would not suffer. Although life moved that way thousands of years ago, times had changed as well as moral or humane views. New excuses were needed to justify killing a person now that killing humans for sacrificial reasons no longer reached acceptance in society. More recent events of human history has shown how, once again, religion has atoned for the act of killing a human being in the excuse of bettering humanity. During the seventeenth century, the village of Salem – a strong religious based community - underwent witch trials due to the allowance of political and economic control they had given a minister over the citizens. Twenty citizens suffered conviction and execution, and the community, finally at ease and even gratification, saw nothing wrong with killing their fellow citizens, believing that they had freed humanity from the “evil” their religion had silently imposed on them. Through the years that have passed, the mindset of “bettering humanity” remains and continues its use as an excuse to rationalize criminal acts such as those from thousands of years ago and those from only a few centuries ago, which society could now view as murders. Fyodor Dostoevsky implies that to this modern day of age, humanity still uses the excuse to “better humanity” as a pass for criminal acts, as unlawful as murder. In Crime and Punishment, the protagonist, Raskolnikov, says, “I simply hinted that an ‘extraordinary’ man has the right [...] and inner right to decide in his own conscience to overstep… certain obstacles [...](sometimes, perhaps, of benefit to[...] humanity).” (Dostoevsky 260). Raskolnikov uses his “inner right” to throw his conscience out the window, which has been battling him since the first time he has even thought about killing Alyona Ivanovna (which he has now committed when he said this), rationalizing his act, once again, as the benefit to humanity. Throughout history there have been certain people that have shaped the world in various ways and have actually bettered humanity. Unfortunately, there have also been numerous people that have tried to mold humanity into what they saw as better. An excellent example would be Adolf Hitler. In his eyes, a well off humanity consisted of Caucasian people with blue eyes and blonde hair that did not believe in Judaism. The unsettling circumstance that he had an abundance of power actually allowed him to begin creating the humanity he saw fit, which also gave him the justification that allowed him to believe that he spoke the truth and due to that he can do whatever means necessary to achieve a better humanity. An article from Review and Expositor says, “Consequently, the power of rhetoric fueled the idea of racial supremacy that resulted in the belief in the elimination of those deemed as “weak” by the state […](the sick, the disabled, and the mentally ill) as well as the Jews.”(West 437). Thus, the Holocaust in Germany came about, and while the whole world watched in grief and disgust, Hitler viewed his actions as an act of good, justifying it with helping humanity. Hitler, however, was not the only person in history to cause harm to the human race for what he believe was the greater good. Raskolnikov, like every other criminal, would go on and try to justify his crime in the novel Crime and Punishment, saying:
I maintain that if the discoveries of Kepler and Newton could not have been made known except by sacrificing the lives of one, a dozen, a hundred, or more men, Newton would have had the right, would indeed have been in duty-bound... to _eliminate_ the dozen or the hundred men for the sake of making his discoveries known to the whole of humanity. But it does not follow from that that Newton had a right to murder people right and left and to steal every day in the market. Then, I remember, I maintain in my article that all... well, legislators and leaders of men, such as Lycurgus, Solon, Mahomet, Napoleon, and so on, were all without exception criminals, from the very fact that, making a new law, they transgressed the ancient one, handed down from their ancestors and held sacred by the people, and they did not stop short at bloodshed either, if that bloodshed--often of innocent persons fighting bravely in defence of ancient law--were of use to their cause. It's remarkable, in fact, that the majority, indeed, of these benefactors and leaders of humanity were guilty of terrible carnage. In short, I maintain that all great men or even men a little out of the common, that is to say capable of giving some new word, must from their very nature be criminals--more or less, of course. Otherwise it's hard for them to get out of the common rut; and to remain in the common rut is what they can't submit to, from their very nature again, and to my mind they ought not, indeed, to submit to it. You see that there is nothing particularly new in all that. The same thing has been printed and read a thousand times before. As for my division of people into ordinary and extraordinary, I acknowledge that it's somewhat arbitrary, but I don't insist upon exact numbers. I only believe in my leading idea that men are _in general_ divided by a law of nature into two categories, inferior (ordinary), that is, so to say, material that serves only to reproduce its kind, and men who have the gift or the talent to utter _a new word_. There are, of course, innumerable sub-divisions, but the distinguishing features of both categories are fairly well marked. The first category, generally speaking, are men conservative in temperament and law-abiding; they live under control and love to be controlled. To my thinking it is their duty to be controlled, because that's their vocation, and there is nothing humiliating in it for them. The second category all transgress the law; they are destroyers or disposed to destruction according to their capacities. The crimes of these men are of course relative and varied; for the most part they seek in very varied ways the destruction of the present for the sake of the better. But if such a one is forced for the sake of his idea to step over a corpse or wade through blood, he can, I maintain, find within himself, in his conscience, a sanction for wading through blood--that depends on the idea and its dimensions, note that. It's only in that sense I speak of their right to crime in my article (you remember it began with the legal question). There's no need for such anxiety, however; the masses will scarcely ever admit this right, they punish them or hang them (more or less), and in doing so fulfil quite justly their conservative vocation. But the same masses set these criminals on a pedestal in the next generation and worship them (more or less). The first category is always the man of the present, the second the man of the future. The first preserve the world and people it, the second move the world and lead it to its goal. Each class has an equal right to exist. In fact, all have equal rights with me--and _vive la guerre éternelle_--till the New Jerusalem, of course! (Dostoevsky 260)
Raskolnikov’s argument clearly claimed that the justification for killing another human being proves valid if it helps the greater of humanity. He even mentioned Newton, and said Newton had the justification to kill as many as he needed if it claimed to help out humanity for the better. Raskolnikov went on and claimed that all great people have a sort of criminality within them, but because of their title of greatness, they would all live under a justification for their actions. Great men and women have been died in the hands of making humanity better. Martin Luther King, Jr., Abraham Lincoln, Gandhi, and many more, under their noble cause to actually want to better humanity, have all been assassinated by the very hand they all fought so hard to save. Ironically, in trying to save humanity, humanity has found these people expandable. People like Raskolnikov, who justify their criminal actions with bettering humanity, have not a clue in how to do so. People like Raskolnikov are the type of people that would assassinate the ones who genuinely want to see the success of humanity. All those great men and women that have been killed were killed by the people that did not care about humanity at all, for they do not see humanity as a whole but favor one side instead of all sides, thus, they kill the person that wants equality due to their views not matching their own, claiming their own views actually help humanity. All those murderers who have killed and claimed they have done so for the greatness of humanity, they are nothing but hypocrites. Humanity, as said in any dictionary, is of the human race. Any person or persons, who have claimed to do humanity a deed by killing another human being, have turned themselves into a symbol for hypocrisy because they are trying to stop humanity.

Sources
Dostoyevsky, Fyodor, and Constance Garnett. Crime and Punishment. New York: Modern Library, 1994. Print.
CERUTI, MC. Frozen Mummies from Andean Mountaintop Shrines: Bioarchaeology and Ethnohistory of Inca Human Sacrifice. BioMed Research International. 2015, 1-12, Aug. 6, 2015. ISSN: 23146133.
West D. Preaching in Hitler's shadow: sermons of resistance in the Third Reich. Review & Expositor [serial online]. December 2014;111(4):437-438. Available from: ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, Ipswich, MA. Accessed April 13, 2016.

Similar Documents

Premium Essay

Voluntary and Involuntary Manslaughter

...Ch. 3 Homicide Manslaughter= killings which lack malice aforethought; or where malice is mitigated -In some cases, a killing is manslaughter because there is simply no intention on the part of the killer to cause the death of another but death results from a reckless act. -In other cases, killing is intentional but is mitigated, or reduced, from murder to manslaughter because of the surrounding circumstances. Malice Aforethought= the conscious intent to cause death or great bodily harm to another person before a person commits the crime. Such malice is a required element to prove first degree murder. Voluntary Manslaughter Voluntary Manslaughter= killings that are the natural and probable result of the defendant’s recklessness, or conscious disregard for human life or safety. *An unlawful killing caused by a willful act done with full knowledge and awareness that the person is endangering the life of another, and done in conscious disregards of that risk is voluntary manslaughter or murder. -California Penal Code 192(a) defines voluntary manslaughter as the “unlawful killing of a human being without malice.” * Heat of Passion Killings: killing in response to legally adequate provocation (malice is mitigated) * Imperfect Self-Defense : killing with an honest but unreasonable belief in the right to use deadly force (malice is mitigated) Elements of Voluntary Manslaughter: * Actus reus- the intentional killing of another * Mans rea- the killer acted either: ...

Words: 832 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Abortion and Morality

...act presents or does not. Some say abortion is a mother’s right that cannot be taken away while others say that is a cruel selfish act to kill an unborn child or lack their of. Is abortion moral and should it remain legal? Aside from maybe a few homicidal maniacs it is safe to say that killing another human being is immoral and frowned upon. What makes it moral to kill an unborn child then? Is it human? One of the biggest struggles that pro-life participants have is what an unborn child is classified as. The definition of a human being according to (Google Dictionary) is as followed. A human being, esp. a person as distinguished from an animal or (in science fiction) an alien, a homosapien. A child whose mother is a homosapien is a human. There is no way around it. Some say that an unborn baby is a human but is not a person. This is quite confusing seeing as how the definition of a “person” is a human being regarded as an individual. Most pro-life individuals say that an unborn child is not human. How can a baby or even a fetus not be a human if it is being born from a human, it is clearly not an alien, I hope. And how can it not be a person if it is human. Just because it depends on the life of its’ mother? Children from the time they are born till the time they decide they are ready to leave depend of their parents or guardians in some way or another. A born child who depends on their parent is no different from an unborn child who depends on their mother. It is simply two...

Words: 876 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Abortion

...Marquis observes that there is a stalemate in the arguments that both anti-abortionists and pro-choicers put forward about abortion: 1. The anti-abortionist argument 1) It is always prima facie wrong to take a human life. 2) A fetus is a human life from the moment of conception. 3) Abortion involves taking a human life, and is therefore prima facie wrong. A Problem with this argument: i) A cancer cell culture is also a human life (it is both living and human), but we don’t think it wrong to destroy cancer cell cultures. The anti-abortionist can try to overcome this problem by changing her argument to: 1) It is always prima facie wrong to kill human beings. 2) A fetus is a human being from the moment of conception. 3) Abortion involves killing human beings, and is therefore prima facie wrong. 2 problems with this argument: i) Are fetuses really human beings? ii) What is so special about human beings that makes it wrong to kill them? Why is killing human beings wrong, while killing rats or chickens is not? 2. The pro-choice argument 1) It is prima facie wrong to kill only persons.. 2) A fetus is not a person. 3) Therefore, abortion does not involve killing persons, and is not prima facie wrong. Problems with this argument: i) Newborn babies and very young children are also not persons. Does this mean it is okay to kill them? ii) What is so special about persons that...

Words: 482 - Pages: 2

Free Essay

Survival of the Fettist

...INTRODUCTION What if killing is legal? Would you remain in your house, or start to hide and run for your very precious life? According to Rawls Principle of Justice, many different kinds of things are said to be just and unjust: not only laws, institutions, and social systems, but also particular actions of many kinds, including decisions, judgments, and imputations. Do you think first before you act? Are you sure that your action does not violate the rights of others? Well, as a person, there are lots of things need to be consider as an unjust action. One example that is said to be unjust in our society is killing. When we say KILLING, it is the act of depriving someone or something's life. When you kill, you’re taking away their rights, not only right to live, but even small things such as right to smile, right to be free and right to love. You are not allowing them to continue their journey and mission as a human. In short you’re ending everything on them. Killing involves decisions and judgments. Judgment if you really going to kill him/her and decisions in deciding how will you kill or what is your way of killing. In every society in our world, it has been set in our minds that killing is prohibited. Once you killed someone or anyone, law will put you to imprisonment for you to pay the sin you've done and the consequences of it. But let me point these things out, even though all of the human race know that killing is forbidden, still there are instances of killing all around the...

Words: 1730 - Pages: 7

Premium Essay

Abortions

...possibly in rare cases, seriously immoral”, what he meant was that not all abortions are wrong. He did not discuss about the exception of “… abortion before implantation, abortion when the life of a woman is threatened by a pregnancy or abortion by rape” Regard of that, Marquis has claimed, “… It is in the same moral category as killing an innocent adult human being.” He inquires the reason of killing a human being is wrong. Marquis explains the killing is not just cause of pain and perceive of loss to the victim’s family, moreover it includes the basis loss to the victims themselves as “the loss of one’s life deprives one of all the experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments that would otherwise have constituted one’s future”. With the respect of Marquis’s theory, it is the loss of a valuable future like ours that respond to the question of why killing a human being is morally wrong. Moreover, Marquis also stated in his article “…the future of a standard fetus includes a set of experiences, projects, activities, and such which are identical with the futures of adult human being and are identical with futures of young children…” The fetus can be seen as a potential human being. The fetus only lacks of the nerves system to be considered as a fully term of human but “…why is it wrong to kill human beings after the time of birth is a reason that also applies...

Words: 1384 - Pages: 6

Premium Essay

Work

...p. 8 Religion and the Sanctity of Life The Sanctity of Life p. 12 A critique of the Sanctity of Life: Jonathan Glover p. 14 Christian perspectives: Methodists and Catholics p. 16 ‘Ensoulment’, soul, and the sacredness of life p. 18 Religious views in conflict: liberalism and conservatism p. 19 Philosophical Problems in Abortion An argument against abortion p. 20 Personhood p. 21 A ‘person’ as rational and self-conscious: Peter Singer p. 24 Moral rights: the foetus and the mother p. 26 A woman’s right to an abortion: Judith Jarvis Thomson p. 28 ‘Why abortion is immoral’: Don Marquis p. 29 Anthology of Texts Unit 2 model answers: ethics (Edexcel) ‘Why abortion challenges us all’: Rowan Williams ‘Contraception and abortion within Protestant Christianity’: Gloria Albrecht ‘Virtue theory and abortion’: Rosalind Hursthouse Appendix: sample exam questions and level descriptors Notes Pages A Modern Controversy: the Case of George Tiller Profile: George Tiller (2009) To some anti-abortionists George Tiller, who was shot dead on Sunday, was a mass murderer known as "Tiller the Killer". To his patients and many pro-choice supporters, he was a hero committed to women in need of help. For two decades, Dr Tiller spent his life looking over his shoulder. He had become a lightning rod for anti-abortion activists and in 1993 survived an attempt on his life. He rarely talked about his work for...

Words: 10065 - Pages: 41

Premium Essay

Assisted Killing Argumentative Essay

...Assisted killing is a divisive issue in contemporary society for a number of reasons including political, economic, and religious factors. The concept of someone welcoming death is contradictory to basic human nature and it can be hard to initially come to terms with. The Right-to-Die movement cites the daunting possibility of a life filled with pain due to ailments and sickness and promotes assisted killing as a favorable alternative when quality of life is below a certain standard. Supporters of this cause also reference the staggering costs of the continued medical assistance needed simply to keep a person alive. Individuals who choose to live while battling terminal or long-term illness will often pay higher premiums for insurance and their...

Words: 1704 - Pages: 7

Premium Essay

Why Abortion Is Wrong

...murdering a human embryo. If abortion is legal then why isn’t murder? It is both the same in a way. Abortion is a safe procedure but can also be fatal and dangerous if not done professionally. Murder is illegal so I think abortion should be too. It’s taking innocent lives away and it’s cruel. Many people also think the human embryo isn’t a human because it hasn’t been born yet. Many people think abortion is okay and do not think it’s hurting anyone or killing a human being, but there is good supporting information stating that abortion is wrong and why. Abortion is the killing of an unborn human being. The United States government considers unborn...

Words: 1267 - Pages: 6

Premium Essay

Abortion

...Are Individual Rights More Important Than Human Life? By Talha Sajjad English 161: Academic II Dr. William Ford University of Illinois at Chicago May 3rd, 2010 There are protests and demonstrations held every day, yet somehow abortion is still legal in the United States. In the decision of the Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade, it was ruled that women have the right, given to them by the Constitution, to have an abortion in the early stages of pregnancy (Infoplease). Hundreds of protesters gather outside clinics that offer abortions and try to present their position on the issue, but it seems as though their cries and complains are never heard. The main question that we must decide on is this: is it just to take away human life before it even has the chance to be lived? Several countries around the world have outlawed the practice of abortion. When deciding the abortion issue, its women’s rights as citizens of the United States versus the religious beliefs of a majority of citizens. What is more important, the sanctity of life or allowing murder on the basis of one’s right to choose? Given the abortion procedure allows women sexual and reproductive freedom, it has unconsciously led to a trend where abortion is being used as a method of contraception. In the United States, 49% of the pregnancies are unintended and American women used abortion as a tool to terminate almost half of these pregnancies (Infoplease). Abortion was not meant to be used in accidental...

Words: 3303 - Pages: 14

Premium Essay

Honour Killinf

...HONOUR KILLING: MURDER IN THE NAME OF HONOUR CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Honour killing is a deep rooted brutal and burning human rights issue in India and other countries. Women particularly are the victims of the gross violation. They exist all over the world but no religion stipulates them. Outdated traditions and alleged honour violating behaviour are the motive for these crimes. The victims are almost always female. Young, unmarried women can "dishonour" their families easily. Every year hundreds of women are killed in India in the name of honour and many cases go unreported and almost all of them go unpunished. The criminal justice system is unable to combat it though it is claimed that the criminal justice system is the most legitimate institution to control this practice in the country. Honour is the most precious moral attribute of mankind. It is deeply ingrained in its nature. Defence of honour even at the cost of life has been prevalent in human beings since ages. It is a commonwealth of close blood relatives. Defilement of honour is taken as the most atrocious social crime and its redemption becomes a joint and sacred duty of close-knit people. Debased groups have a soft approach towards transgression of honour. The sentimental chord dormant in them may react at times; its degree may vary from group to group. Tradition-bound rural societies invariably react violently for the redemption of their honour. To them honour is dearer than life. Honour killings...

Words: 30961 - Pages: 124

Premium Essay

Euthanasia

...means as an action which aims at taking the life of another at the latter's expressed request. It concerns an action of which death is the purpose and the result. "This definition applies only to voluntary euthanasia and excludes the non-voluntary or involuntary euthanasia, the killing of a patient without the patient's knowledge or consent. Some call this "life-terminating treatment." Euthanasia can be either active or passive. Passive euthanasia allows one to die by withholding or withdrawing life supporting means. This is a tricky area because ordinary and extraordinary means of supporting life come into the picture. Ordinary means such as nutrition and hydration are never to be withheld since they are one's basic right in order to survive. However, one is not obliged to use extraordinary or 'disproportionate' means to sustain life. Due to complexity, each situation needs to be looked at individually when discussing extraordinary means. However, as a rule, one can discontinue "medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome." One cannot intend death by withdrawing or withholding treatment, but should, however, obey God and let one die a natural death. To withdraw a treatment as a condition worsens is letting one die and not a direct killing. In this case, it is the disease that is killing and not the one who withdraws the treatment. Active euthanasia or' mercy killing' pertains to the Dr. Kevorkian’s' of the day...

Words: 1119 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Funny How Some Things Can Seem so Small

...means as an action which aims at taking the life of another at the latter's expressed request. It concerns an action of which death is the purpose and the result. "This definition applies only to voluntary euthanasia and excludes the non-voluntary or involuntary euthanasia, the killing of a patient without the patient's knowledge or consent. Some call this "life-terminating treatment." Euthanasia can be either active or passive. Passive euthanasia allows one to die by withholding or withdrawing life supporting means. This is a tricky area because ordinary and extraordinary means of supporting life come into the picture. Ordinary means such as nutrition and hydration are never to be withheld since they are one's basic right in order to survive. However, one is not obliged to use extraordinary or 'disproportionate' means to sustain life. Due to complexity, each situation needs to be looked at individually when discussing extraordinary means. However, as a rule, one can discontinue "medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome." One cannot intend death by withdrawing or withholding treatment, but should, however, obey God and let one die a natural death. To withdraw a treatment as a condition worsens is letting one die and not a direct killing. In this case, it is the disease that is killing and not the one who withdraws the treatment. Active euthanasia or' mercy killing' pertains to the Dr. Kevorkian’s' of the day...

Words: 1119 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Abortion

...Abortion Fact #1: Every abortion kills an innocent human being. Every new life begins at conception. This is an irrefutable fact of biology. It is true for animals and true for humans. When considered alongside the law of biogenesis – that every species reproduces after its own kind – we can draw only one conclusion in regard to abortion: every single abortion ends the life of an innocent human being. Fact #2: Every human being is a person. Personhood is properly defined by membership in the human species, not by stage of development within that species. A living being's designation to a species is determined not by the stage of development but by the sum total of its biological characteristics. Fact #3: Beginning at conception, every pregnancy involves two or more bodies. No matter how you spin it, women don't have four arms and four legs when they're pregnant. Those extra appendages belong to the tiny human being(s) living inside of them. At no point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother's body. Fact #4: It is just, reasonable, and necessary for society to outlaw certain choices. Any civilized society restricts the individual's freedom to choose whenever that choice would harm an innocent person. Therefore, it is impossible to justify abortion by simply arguing that women should be "free to choose." Fact #5: The right to not be killed supersedes the right to not be pregnant....

Words: 1572 - Pages: 7

Premium Essay

Euthanasia

...Euthanasia Euthanasia also known as mercy killing is a way of painlessly terminating one’s life with the "humane" motive of ending his suffering. Euthanasia came into public eye recently during the Terri Schiavo controversy where her husband appealed for euthanasia while Terri's family claimed differently. This is a classical case shedding light on the pros and cons of mercy killing. Albania, Belgium, Netherlands, Oregon, Switzerland and Luxembourg are some places where euthanasia or assisted suicide has been legalized. Let's have a look at the arguments that will help us understand the reasoning for / against mercy killing. Pro Euthanasia Arguments: Legalizing euthanasia would help alleviate suffering of terminally ill patients. It would be inhuman and unfair to make them endure the unbearable pain. In case of individuals suffering from incurable diseases or in conditions where effective treatment wouldn’t affect their quality of life; they should be given the liberty to choose induced death. Also, the motive of euthanasia is to "aid-in-dying" painlessly and thus should be considered and accepted by law. Although killing in an attempt to defend oneself is far different from mercy killing, law does find it worth approving. In an attempt to provide medical and emotional care to the patient, a doctor does and should prescribe medicines that will relieve his suffering even if the medications cause gross side effects. This means that dealing with agony and...

Words: 801 - Pages: 4

Free Essay

Abortion

...Accordingly, it is morally similar to killing a healthy adult.” Critically discuss this argument, drawing upon at least one of the authors we have looked at in the readings. Abortion in general can be defined as terminating a pregnancy before birth and this still remains a controversial topic in the world today of whether it is immoral or moral to do so. Besides certain exceptions, the view of abortion as a seriously immoral action has minimal support or evidence in present-day philosophical literature (Marquis, 1989). However, views exist when it comes to illuminating the permissibility of abortion, particularly when future prospects of the foetus are taken into account. This is what the future like ours argument also points out that killing an adult human being is wrong because it deprives the adult of a future and the foetus has a future as well, killing foetuses is wrong in the same way that killing adult human beings is wrong (Kuflik, 2008:417). The future like ours argument is parallel to controversial religious claims and does not appeal to perplexing or difficult philosophical theories (Kuflik, 2008:418). In this essay an attempt will be made to critically discuss abortion being impermissible as it is similar to killing a healthy adult. People against abortion normally depend on the idea that the foetus is a human being or a person from the moment of conception, this notion is argued for but not so well (Thompson, 1971 :266). The growth of a human being from conception to childhood...

Words: 1097 - Pages: 5