Is Taking a Life Ever Justified? / Updated Blog Schedule

Hey everyone. Exciting news today. I have decided to make life easier on myself by setting specific categories to discuss for everyday of the week. This will take a lot of stress off me to try and find any random topic to talk about. Now, I can search one category and find a topic relevant to that. The schedule is as follows: Monday - Conspiracies, Tuesday - Technology, Wednesday - Psychology, Thrusday - Existential, Friday - Society, Saturday - Mythical, and Sunday - Life & Death.

This should streamline things a little bit easier for everyone. You can have an idea of what I'll be writing about each day. Let me know if you like this idea, and if you have better categories for me to pick from tell me. This is just the first categories I thought of yesterday. Thanks.

Now, can we get on with this post already? Since today is Sunday, that means we'll be talking about life & death. I thought it was an appropriate day to talk about since most people talk about this stuff with that bearded-guy in the sky on Sunday. 

I won't be talking about the church today, though, at least that's not the whole thing. I want to discuss a question that is kind of a hot button for a lot of people.

Is Taking a Life Ever Justified?

What a time to discuss this right? With all the protests and debates going on around this subject nowadays. I don't want to join sides though. My philosophy when it comes to arguments is: Listen, understand, respond. Repeat until agreement occurs. If both parties follow those simple instructions then the debate is over quickly and with satisfied players at the end.

Let's begin this with a situation example:

Let’s suppose that a police officer arrives at a residence on a domestic violence call and finds one spouse holding a gun on the other. Now let’s ask why killing anyone would be wrong.

The answer would have to be framed in terms of the principle of non-maleficence expressed as “Do no harm!” Killing someone is the most harm you can do anyone. So, it looks like killing the spouse holding the gun is to be avoided at all costs. Yet if the officer does nothing then that ultimate harm will be done to the spouse whose life is being threatened. So, either way a life will be lost. Who then should lose their life? The one threatening loss of life, or the one whose loss of life is being threatened? It would seem to be clear that in this situation the one who should lose his right to live should be the one who is threatening to take that same right away from someone else.

The important thing to take away from this example is that if taking anyone’s life is ever justifiable, then that justification must involve protecting the life of the innocent. Simply to say that killing is justifiable in self-defense is not enough to justify it.

Thieves or rapists, for example, couldn’t claim that killing their victims is justified because their victims resisted. When this happens, the robber can’t say he had the right to act in self-defense. The problem with the justification of self-defense in this type of circumstance is that the aggressors are not innocent. Like the violent spouse they are the ones presenting the “Thou shalt not kill” dilemma.

What counts then in justifying killing is that the one who is defending himself or an innocent third party is that they are innocent of the aggression that presents this dilemma in the first place.

If innocence is what really counts in justifying killing, then one final thought here is that you are no more entitled to defend yourself than you are to defend an innocent third party. The same thing that justifies the one also justifies the other.

To assume a pacifism that allows self-defense when threatened but which does not accept responsibility for defending innocent third parties is to take a self-contradictory moral position.

The challenge about answering a question within the confines of morality is that it isn't an absolute truth - as it varies between cultures, religions, and even individuals within those groups to some degree.

The easy argument against this is (and I use the word "easy" not as a condescending adjective, but as it is the usual first defense), what justifies one person to choose when a person's life should end? How could one sleep at night knowing that they are the cause of someone's death? 

There are some people that argue only the weak resort to killing. The people who solve conflict without ending another life are the true bringers of peace and love. They understand the war and self-defense argument, but due to our technological advancement, we have weapons that take out people without killing them. That is true justice.

Another argument against taking a life is also quite simple to understand. "God says no." Even a situation where it is the only thing that will save you or your family, it's still a sin. While this may seem like doing nothing, and it more or less is, this is where what God wants and what men feel is right gets a little complicated. The heavenly father commands that we not take the life of another. The Bible, however, states that our Lord is very forgiving and loving. So, it comes down to, do you disobey and sin to save yourself or another, or do you simply let it happen? Well, to simply let it happen is kind of the same thing as doing it yourself, which is also forbidden. 

Once this religious dilemma is brought up, the defense will move to one word: Compromise. A good word. It's fixed a lot of problems in the world throughout history, and it could very well fix this problem that splits our society nearly in half. An attempt to talk through the event is way better than just ending it for good, they say. If talking it out isn't working than try with every ounce of your own will to apprehend the threat.

Not a bad point to make (certainly understandable), but what if you've exhausted every other attempt to stop the situation. What if that threat from the first example has the gun cocked and his/her finger is closing on the trigger? What should the police officer do then? He's tried talking the threat down, but it's done nothing but stall time from the inevitable. A choice has to be made. What would you do?

Capital Punishment

Another hot button debate. The death penalty. Should it be allowed? The answers vary. I'll just lay out a few pros and cons I've found on debate.org:

Pros

• The U.S. government spends millions of taxpayers dollars to keep these lowlife convicts in prison! Any suspect found of murder/rape should ultimately be put down! It's not the taxpayers fault that they messed up and they should be put to rest and be treated like all of the other scum in the world that was killed for wrong doings.
• What about those serial killers. What about the serial rapist? Do you really want those people on this Earth? If they can’t control themselves during the time they were free, they should not be allowed to remain part of society and get what they deserve for all the pain they have caused other.
• Criminals would think twice before committing their crimes if death penalty exists. If they know they may face death for what they do, they may change their minds and give up on committing any crime.

Some excellent points to be made for capital punishment. Now for the cons.

Cons

• Death is too good for them. They should be tortured for the rest of their lives. Death is way too quick and simple. Innocent people unfortunately always get the punishment for some reason while the criminals just get away with it. It's not fair. Torture is the best and most suitable punishment. Also it is not worth taking the risk of accidentally executing the wrong person.
• THOU SHALL NOT KILL. I am not minimizing the reality of crime that occurs within our society, but when someone commits such a grievous crime such as murder, I do not believe that they should have their own life taken from them. I agree with life in prison without Parole is reasonable, but lethal injection is not right. The only one who has the right to take life is God himself.
• We as humans need to protect and help one another, however with everything in our society, I understand that to some people the death penalty should be legalized. But who are we to play God, to kill those we deem deserve death? We are hypocrites if we kill a murderer, what would be next? Raping a rapist? It must be taken in perspective, yes, it's only used in extreme cases, but even in Sweden there is a prison where the maximum sentence is 12 years, they use their resources to educate and help the prisoners. The prisoners come out of there well educated and do not go back to hurting others. This should be considered, after all, we are humans, and it is not morally correct to kill other humans.

Also interesting points being made against capital punishment.

There are tons of different points to bring up for both sides, but the important thing is to not only look at the points on the side you're on. You must understand your enemy if you want to win. You cannot blindly follow your beliefs and ignore arguments against just because you know you are right. You never know, someone might bring up an argument that you actually believe. You may come to understand that maybe what you once thought was right or wrong was actually the opposite.

That's the problem with people these days. No one does their homework. No one will take the time to learn about another person's perspective because they're certain they have the right answer. That's how wars breakout people. It's time to put that ego to the side and try and learn about each other. If we don't soon, then we're really going to be in trouble in the coming years. Think about it.

See you all tomorrow. 

Buh-bye.