Many ethical issues today call for an understanding of the moral side. The moral problem in this context identifies the ethics of killing. Even though many people believe that it is morally wrong to kill, their explanation is the primary cause of concern. However, actions involving consciousness of the loss of life could be better if they are the most appropriate causes of action that depend on the nature of the case. Research reflected by the experts of essay empire that people can be killed in a situation where they cannot do anything due to disability. Besides, it is not possible to reverse disability if actions such as vital organ transplantation are incompatible or impossible. The right to kill is present in many societies because it is based on the aspect of abortion, patients with mental illness or brain damage, and the existence of the death penalty.
People attempt to kill others, and it is considered a murder. Killing an unborn child is seen as a murder in the case where the life of the mother is at risk. This reason forms the belief that it is morally right to kill. In this approach, abortion is considered a positive way of murdering to save the pregnant mother’s life. The greatest benefit in this case is the existence of the mother. The unborn child does not live in the known world. As a result, people would acknowledge that it is morally right to save the life by killing another person whose life is as precious as the mother’s one. The moral conflict is that the mother is aware of the environment or the self while the unborn lacks knowledge of these things.
Alternatively, Kant’s formula of humanity requires people to treat individuals in ways that form the human end. Kant notes that people should be seen as valuable ends and not just small means. If the unborn child is treated with dignity, then it implies that the mother is disregarded and left to die if abortion is the only way to save her life. According to Kant, the source of human dignity is the moral capacity, reflected by the rational nature. Other duties, such as allowing the mother to die or killing her to save the life, are imperfect and express disrespect to the self. As a result, it is necessary to kill in the case where the life of the pregnant woman is in danger.
The decision to kill is interrelated to the step that is taken by caregivers and the court in the case where a patient is unable to make health decisions or when he or she suffers from mental illness. Patients with issues related to their mental capacity have no choice but to let the will of the caregivers take control. In such cases, the caregivers employ the patient’s prior wish to stop medication or terminate the life-saving machine. This behavior is not different from the act of killing. In this case, the issue takes the debate on whether it is right to kill. In many situations, patients are unable to do anything, especially, when their mental incapability seems to be incurable. There are many difficulties involved in brain damage, such as the change in diagnosis; the aspects of looking for decisions between the family, doctors, and the courts are also problematic.
Moreover, the life of the patient becomes meaningless in the area where the illness damages the brain and the patient only seems to be in anguish. At such point of life, it is appropriate to terminate the life to prevent the patient from intense pain, especially, when the damage is irreversible. Besides, the prior interests and wishes of the client should be fulfilled if he or she is allowed to rest or die instead of experiencing constant pain; in this case, the moral significance of the situation should be adopted.
The right to kill depends on the scope and the reasons behind the practice. It is apparent that some countries lack the death penalty. In many cases, the rule is applied to individuals whose behaviors are condemned by the society. In this case, some researchers established that people could be killed under significant circumstances, such as the instance when one person kills another for no apparent reason. Even though the right is not predetermined by any law, it exists in the culture of the particular societies. The research on the issue was conducted among seven Latin-American cities. The results revealed that the right would be proceeded to defend an individual’s family. For instance, if someone was killed for raping someone’s daughter, then, the right would be applicable. In the same manner, a person could be killed for attacking a particular community. The study noted that the results of such purge killings are not prevalent in comparison to the past. The results of the present research were analyzed and presented by social variables and cities and indicated the existence of a cultural pattern that was not compatible with the law. As a result, the research displayed the right to kill that is practiced by particular communities in the Latin-American society.
Overall, it is evident that the right to kill is practicable in several communities. The decision to kill is appreciated in the situation where the pregnant mother’s life is in danger. The caregivers chose to kill the unborn child, which is ethical in comparison to the case where the mother should be killed. Kant’s formula requires people to treat others in a way that forms the human end. In this case, the unborn child does not exist in the outside environment, and it is the reason why it is moral to terminate its life. The right to kill is also evident when patients have mental illnesses. At this point, the caregivers use the prior interests of the patient to terminate his or her life. In this case, it is ethical because it prevents the client from additional pain, especially, when the illness or damage is incurable. The issue of the death penalty also reflects the need to proceed with the right to kill. In some countries, people commit crimes, and the community agrees to terminate the life of the criminals.