Is it ever justifiable to kill someone?
Is it ever justifiable to kill someone? In this essay I am going to explore the question- is it ever justifiable to kill someone? This is a very controversial issue as many people have different viewpoints. Some people think that killing, for whatever reason is wrong. Some people think that killing is never wrong, and some think that it is justifiable to kill someone in certain situations. For example, in December 2000, there was a case of two conjoined twins, who were conjoined at the lower abdomen but were capable of lying flat on their back. At first glance they appeared as if they were one single trunk with a head and limbs at both ends. Although their spines were fused, their legs were independently formed and criss-crossed each other. At birth, Jodie was active and breathing voluntarily with a good heart and chest movement and moving all four limbs. In Mary's case, there was a minimal response from the cardiopulmonary system before it failed. The medical team soon realised that Mary's heart and lungs were so poorly developed that she was totally dependent on Jodie for oxygen and blood circulation. In other words, she could not exist without Jodie. While Jodie's system did collapse from blood poisoning shortly after birth, her heart and lungs were reported to be later fully functioning - giving the doctors hope that she could be saved. She was also said to have the
Is there an ethical difference between actively killing someone and letting someone die?
Moral Dilemmas This moral dilemma poses the question as to whether there is an ethical difference between actively killing someone and letting someone die. Is it morally wrong to kill someone but acceptable to let someone die? An active action is the process by which someone deliberately and uncontrovertibly does something, fully knowing and intending what the consequences will be. A passive action is the process by which someone deliberately does not act, even after knowing what the consequences will be. In the former case, the developer is going to indisputably kill six protestors, in order to prevent any opposition (an active action as this developer is going to actually kill them). However in the latter case, by building the bridge, a few workers may (with a quite high probability) die (a passive action for which the government will not be held accountable for, unless it is proven that the government were negligible). Many people make a moral distinction between active and passive killing (they think that it is sometimes alright to let someone die, but it is never moral to kill someone), but is there actually an ethical difference? Using the idea of euthanasia, people think that it is acceptable to withhold treatment and allow a patient to die, but that it is never acceptable to kill a patient by a deliberate act. Some medical people like this idea. They think it allows
There is no reason to follow the rules if you're not religious. Discuss
There is no reason to follow the rules if you’re not religious In this democratic age we vote in those people (or party) who we want to rule our country and in turn create our laws. However this is a very old system, which some could argue takes its basis from the 10 Commandments from the Old Testament. If this is the case, in a growing atheistic state, why should you follow the rules if you are not religious, for which the 10 Commandments were designed for? In London, it is illegal to flag down a taxi if you have the plague. This law has an obvious provenance; during the Black Death, in order to prevent the spread of the disease. However nowadays, this previously appropriate law is out of date and obsolete. How can something created thousands of years ago still be relevant to modern life? A more secular set of laws would be more appropriate and representative to govern the people. The 10 Commandments are very inflexible; they don’t take into account the situation and are inexorable. For instance, there are some cases when you should lie i.e. for the greater good. However in this narrow and oppressive set of laws, this is never allowed, which is against our autonomy. The 10 Commandments do not mention any form of punishment, for religious people they wouldn’t need any deterrence, just the idea of serving God and going to Heaven. So in effect, the actual punishment
Just war theory
Just war is a theory devised Thomas Aquinas (c.1225-74) and Francisco de Vitoria (1483-1546). It is a kind of guideline for having just reasoning to go to war and how to behave when at war. I am going to explore how and if the bible or the church support the clauses outlined by just war theory. Just war theory can be used either as outline for going to war or a guide on how to behave when at war. The first of the clauses "it must be fought by a legal recognised authority e.g. a government". This means that someone like Osama Bin Laden has no right to wage a war because he is not a recognised authority. In my opinion this theory is flawed because if someone starts a civil war, not in a position of power, and wins, is it then alright. This clause supported by the bible in Romans 13:1-4, "Everyone must obey the state authority... Gods permission". This teaching supports the first clause because it states that all authorities are put forth by god and that they have the right. The second clause is "the cause of the war must be just". St Augustine believed that there were only three just causes: * defending against attack * recapturing things taken * punishing people who have done wrong These are all just because they deserve to be harmed because they have done wrong. The third clause "the war must be fought with the intention to establish good or correct evil", this
life after death
Nura Hassan Life after death "Describe the teachings and beliefs of the religion which you are studying about death and what may happen afterwards" All Christians believe that when someone dies, that person goes to either hell or heaven, the Christian view points differ as there is no agreement on some aspects of heaven and hell, for instance how to get there. An ontological Christian believes that it's how much you love god (his essence of being) that matters. The more you love God the more chance you have of going to heaven. In Romans 10 :9 Jesus says, "if you confess that Jesus is the Lord and believe that God raised him from death, you will be saved", which means if you believe and love God than you will be saved from hell. The Functional Christian belief is that the more good you do (physically) like going to church etc. then the more chance you have of going to heaven, implying 'do good things get good things'. They believe that it's your deeds that will choose your position in the afterlife. They may refer to the bible teaching Mark 10: 40-42; "and who ever welcomes a good man because he is good, will share in his reward. You can be sure that whoever gives even a drink of cold water to one the least of these my followers because he is my follower, will certainly receive a reward." Here, it says that the people that help other Christians will be rewarded in the
Outline Christian teaching on wealth and poverty
Ai). Outline Christian teaching on wealth and poverty. Christians believe that wealth is neither completely harmful nor beneficial. While wealth can be advantageous to those in need (like building foundations for the homeless,) it can also promote corruption in our world, providing the incentive for some to abuse their wealth (such as buying weapons to commit violent acts.) To find these Christian teachings, we can refer to Bible references, the beliefs of the different denominations, what the Churches preach, and what Jesus has said. Stewardship & humans made in the image of God According to Genesis in the Old Testament, Christians believe that all men and women were created in the image of God, and are thus equal in his eyes. They also acknowledge the teachings of stewardship observed from the Parable of the Talents in which everything that God has created has been presented as a gift to all humans with the intention of sharing his creations equally and using it to benefit each other. In fact, the Methodist Church believes that everything is interdependent. They believe that men and women should be stewards, and not exploiters of its resources - whether it is material or spiritual. (What the Churches Say) Wealth is a distraction from God; we should use it to help the poor. In the Parable of the Rich Fool, Jesus entails a story about a rich farmer who was blessed with