Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458. All rights reserved
58
CHAPTER 9 – THE TAKING OF HUMAN LIFE
General Overview
In this chapter some of the basic arguments for and against the taking of human life in various
contexts (suicide, defense of the innocent, war, terrorism, capital punishment, etc.) are laid out
and examined. The so-called “seamless garment” position appears consistent since the position
here is an opposition to the taking of human life across the board and in every context. For some
this is too “absolutist” and so each situation where life is at stake needs to be carefully examined
and to see where exceptions may be justified.
Class Suggestions
There are a large number of complex topics dealt with in this chapter so some instructors may
wish to introduce all but concentrate on one. Some instructors may have already examined
capital punishment in detail from a previous chapter. One may also see which topic is most
current and “newsworthy” to peak student interests. After September 11th, terrorism has been of
especial interest to instructors and students and can open up perspectives for students that are
often not available to them. Debates or group projects on any of these issues can also be
supplemented by showing a video or getting students to examine the wealth of material available
on all these issues in their college library, on the internet, etc.
The case material now available at the end of each chapter should also be integrated if possible.
The case approach has some real advantages for philosophy instructors, since theoretical
abstractions can be explored in the grain and detail of specific situations. Also, the author has
laid out his own “humanitarian ethics” position at the end of each chapter. Instructors may wish
to explore these ideas with students or use them as a counterfoil, but be aware that some students
may simply lift arguments from this section and repeat them back at you as the “answer.”
Chapter Summary
This chapter examines the different types of situations involving the taking of human life and
explores how basic principles can be applied to them.
Definition of Suicide
Intentionally taking one’s own life. Not considered civilly or criminally unlawful.
Arguments Against the Morality of Suicide
The Irrationality of Suicide:
Suicides are mentally ill. If not a rational act, then immoral. Evidence that many suicides are
rational, e.g., Socrates.
The Religious Argument:
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458. All rights reserved
59
Only God has authority to give and take life.
1. Should not be imposed on non-religious.
2. Presupposes that God intervenes directly in human affairs as prime cause of life and death.
This means that human beings do not ultimately or should not make decisions and take
responsibility for direct care of human life.
The Domino Argument:
If one allows human life to be taken in some cases, then you open the door for its being taken in
other instances.
The Justice Argument:
Those who survive a suicide pay an unjust penalty.
Arguments for the Morality of Suicide
1. Rights over one’s own body and life.
2. Only the individual knows whether their life is worth living. However, one does not have
absolute rights over our life and freedom if those rights curtail others’ rights to life and
freedom, etc.
Defense of the Innocent (the Self Included)
Argument Against Killing in Defense of the Innocent
1. Taking of human life is always wrong. May not kill, not even in self-defense.
Criticism: Does not take into consideration all complexities of situations, especially where some
do not respect the rights of others and can only be stopped by being killed themselves.
Argument for Killing in Defense of the Innocent
1. Moral obligation to protect innocents when another does not value other’s lives.
2. Good of defending innocent outweighs the bad of killing a person who kills or threatens to
kill innocents.
Criticism: “Violence breeds violence” – the “domino effect.” Who decides “innocence” and
“guilt” here?
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458. All rights reserved
60
War
Arguments Against the Morality of War
1. Direct violation of value of life principle.
2. Bad far outweighs good.
Arguments for the Morality of War
1. War as controller of overpopulation.
2. War as the mother of invention.
3. War as boon to economic gain and national unity.
4. War as necessary – “just war” argument.
These arguments cannot support nuclear war.
Terrorism
War against civilians with the objective of protecting certain ideas, policies, beliefs, etc.
Argument in Support of Terrorism
1. Only sure-fire way of getting recognition
2. Peaceful protest doesn’t work – indeed most often gets you beaten or killed
Argument Against Terrorism
1. Excessive violence against innocent cannot be morally condoned.
2. Terrorism leads to more terrorism from the other side.
Definition of Capital Punishment
Inflicting death for capital crimes like murder.
Theories of Punishment – (Refer to Chapter 7)
Retribution – punish only those who deserve it because of some act. Punishment should fit crime.
Utilitarian – punish to advance good of society, if it brings about good consequences, i.e., deter
crime, protect people, etc.
Restitution – compensation for harms done.
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458. All rights reserved
61
Arguments Against the Morality of Capital Punishment
1. Violation of Value of Life principle
2. Effect on criminal’s victims or on society
3. Ineffectiveness as a deterrent
4. Executing an innocent person
5. Denial of chance for rehabilitation
Arguments for the Morality of Capital Punishment
1. Effective deterrent
2. Economic argument – (costs too much to keep in prison)
3. Effect upon society’s laws – (sanction argument)
4. Forfeiture of killer’s rights
5. Uselessness of rehabilitation
6. Revenge
KEY TERMS AND CONCEPTS
Killing
Suicide
War
Just War
Innocence
Terrorism
Freedom Fighter
Capital Punishment
Rehabilitation
Revenge
ESSAY QUESTIONS
1. Look at the arguments for and against suicide. Try to argue a position and justify your
claims.
2. Is terrorism ever justified?
3. Is killing in defense of the innocent sometimes morally justifiable? Use examples to illustrate
your answer.
4. “War is morality by other means.” Discuss.
5. Argue a position for or against capital punishment. Carefully analyze the best arguments and
try to justify your own claims.
TRUE/FALSE
1. According to the author the taking of human life is always wrong.
2. Various religions are opposed to suicide because they believe that only God has the authority
to give and take life.
3. Killing to defend the innocent is accepted by all moral systems.
4. The best argument for war is that it controls population.
5. The position that a criminal deserves punishment because he or she is guilty is defended by
utilitarians.
6. War always involves the massive loss of life.
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458. All rights reserved
62
7. Terrorism is a very recent phenomenon of the 20th century.
8. Capital punishment is the policy of the US government.
9. The “eye for an eye” view of capital punishment is known as the revenge argument.
10. It costs more to give a criminal capital punishment than it does to give him life
imprisonment.
MULTIPLE CHOICE
11. In the Platonic dialogue __________, Socrates famously discussed his decision to drink the
poison hemlock.
a) The Republic
b) The Georgias
c) The Crito
d) The Sophist
12. An effective argument against the morality of suicide can be the
a) religious argument.
b) justice argument.
c) irrationality argument.
d) depression argument.
13. No one really advocates suicide. But some support the value of the principle of __________
in moral decision making
a) justice
b) freedom
c) honesty
d) beneficence
14. One good argument that attempts to justify killing in defense of the innocent says that
a) the good of defending the innocent outweighs the bad of killing a person threatening to kill
innocents.
b) the good of killing a person threatening innocents is at least equal to any bad.
c) God works in mysterious ways and humans don’t understand His morality.
d) we must defend the innocent to the point of killing those who threaten them because it’s justice.
15. According to the author the most morally significant argument for war is
a) overpopulation.
b) economic gain.
c) technological development.
d) “Necessary Evil.”
16. The main argument against war is that it is a massive violation of the principle of
a) freedom.
b) justice.
c) goodness.
d) life.
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458. All rights reserved
63
17. Terrorism can be defined as
a) war against civilians to undermine their leaders, government and policies.
b) politics by other means.
c) an attempt by the “third world” to express anger at the “first world.”
d) war against non-religious civilians by religious groups.
18. Capital punishment can be justified as a deterrent is a view held by
a) Retributivists.
b) Restitutionists.
c) Pacifists.
d) Utilitarians.
19. The main argument against the morality of capital punishment is that
a) it’s cruel and inhumane.
b) we have no right to take life, only God has.
c) it is a violation of the Value of Life principle.
d) it offers no chance for rehabilitation.
20. In some situations the taking of human life, according to the author, must be
a) always acceptable.
b) never acceptable.
c) sometimes acceptable.
d) never unacceptable.
Answer Key to Chapter 9 Test Questions
True or False: Multiple Choice:
