Some may argue that in cases of self-defense, tyranny, or if you feel you have a moral obligation to do so, violence can be a justifiable action. You are doing this to save yourself or others from the horror that may fall upon you or them as well. Consider killing as an example. Can killing a morally innocent person, someone who has not given their consent to dying, have their life be taken to save other innocent people, be justified? In this essay, I'm going to look at this topic from an ethical and juristic point of view.
A good entry point for exploring this question is looking at the 'trolley problem'. This experiment challenges an ethical dilemma. In this problem, you are confronted by 2 possible outcomes: you can deliberately kill an overweight man to save five people, or you do not intervene and let the overweight man live while killing those five other people. But why would 60% of people living in the UK choose saving five innocent people by sacrificing one equally innocent overweight man, and would the outcome of this dilemma change if you were to change some of the components within this problem, such as sacrificing a non-overweight man, a child or someone to whom you are emotionally connected? Probably. This shows that there is a particular difficulty associated with the question of whether violence like killing someone can be justified, you cannot simply answer with a 'yes' or a 'no'.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
When considering these things, you must recognize the complexity and the context of the incident and the killer's decision. There are countless scenarios that can be discussed, some are more popular than others. If you had the chance to go back in time, would it be justifiable to kill little Hitler? You would save the lives of millions of people, you would not only prevent World War II but also the Holocaust. And when choosing between one little baby you know will turn out to be a crazed mass murderer and the Holocaust, it's an obvious decision, isn't it? However, there are different aspects to consider. There are far more practical ways of preventing Hitler's rise to power than killing an innocent child. You could kidnap the Austrian baby and perhaps bring him to an orphanage.
Another essential aspect that must be taken into consideration is self-defense. Self-defense is described as the use of reasonable force to defend one's self or another. It is seen as a justification defense rather than an excuse by the English law. Does this mean that taking away the life of another person to save your own is justifiable? Let`s look at an extreme case. You are attacked by a person who intends to torture and then kill you. You manage to break out of his hold and take his weapon. If you want to survive, your only option is to kill the person trying to kill you. There is no option of shooting the intruder in the leg or the shoulder. There is a common factor in both this and the baby Hitler scenario, both people are trying to take away your right to living. Is this another obvious decision that can be answered with a 'yes'? Maybe.
In the UK, the topic of euthanasia has been widely discussed since the 1900s and lately, the amount of euthanasia and assisted deaths, as well as assisted suicides, has been soaring. First, you must distinguish between the three. The main difference between euthanasia and assisted dying is who performs the final, fatal act. Euthanasia is the act of intentionally ending a life to relieve suffering, for example, fatal sedation performed by a doctor, whereas assisted dying is a combination of both euthanasia and assisted suicide because it usually refers to the assisted suicide of a terminally ill person. Assisted suicide on its own is about helping someone to take their own life at their request. When talking about this topic, countries such as the Netherlands and Switzerland come to mind, with each one having its laws regarding this topic. For example, in the Netherlands, euthanasia and assisted suicide are legal if the patient is suffering and under unbearable pain. If you are over twelve years old, you can request this, but you need parental permission until you are at least sixteen years old. There is no mandatory waiting period and there is no requirement to be terminally ill. Switzerland allows assisted suicide without a diagnosis or symptom state, and there is no age restriction. However, if your motivation for dying is deemed as being selfish, for example, you assist someone in dying to inherit something earlier, it is illegal. What makes these types of killing different from the rest? In the case of assisted dying and suicide, it is your own decision to take your life, whatever your motive may be. In the case of euthanasia, someone else dictates whether you should live or die, which I think doesn't make them much different from a murderer.
Out of the 193 countries worldwide, 53 still have the death penalty, and many of those have dozens of offenses that can be punished by death, for example, Pakistan has 27. Even though countless countries have abolished this outdated form of punishment, many still perform executions, but why? It is said that three main reasons justify taking the life of someone who has committed a (usually serious) crime. Arguments say that the death penalty is necessary to instill fear in criminals to refrain them from committing crimes. It is also argued that, from a moral standpoint, the perpetrator deserves such a punishment if he has committed a serious crime, for example, killing another person. Lastly, the death penalty would ensure that that person would never commit a crime again. On the outside, these arguments seem reasonable. However, I feel like they can be taken apart by just a second thought. There is no evidence to prove that the death penalty deters crime. A study that compares the murder rates within the different states of the USA that have the death penalty and those that abolished it shows very little difference. Also, from a moral point of view, some punishments are to be disapproved because they violate human dignity. Would stealing from a thief and violence towards a domestic abuser be considered an ethically correct punishment? Is the extremity of murder a reason to disobey something that would naturally seem logical? Some might argue that capital punishment is an easy way out. A murderer is not confronted with self-reflection, something that is arguably more difficult to live with than to die with. In the end, it would seem logical that punishing a murderer with the most severe punishment there is would bring closure to those affected, but the opposite seems to be true. Studies show that because the death penalty can drag on for years with countless appeals, it would cause family and friends to think even more about the incident, delaying the healing process and delaying closure. There are some reasons why I do not think the death penalty is justifiable.
Overall, I believe that there is no definitive answer to the question of whether violence is justifiable or not. When considering killing someone, the answer is always based on the incident, but it will always lean towards 'no'. I think the only occasions where you can justify killing someone are in the cases of self-defense, where you have no other option but to kill the person trying to kill or harm you, and assisted suicide. I believe that it is a person's right to choose when and how they want to pass on, especially in cases of mental and physical sicknesses.
Stuck on your essay?
