That's a difficult question, and I don't think it's a true dichotomy.
I don't think the taking of a human life is ever the most morally correct action. However, that doesn't mean that it can't be a morally correct choice at all. For instance, if you see a person about to kill a small child with a gun, the most morally correct choice might be to be an experienced MMA fighter who can disarm and incapacitate the assailant without killing. However, preserving the life of an innocent is still more morally correct than standing by and doing nothing, even if saving that life requires taking another.
(All of the above is simply my opinion, of course)
Killing people I don't ever believe is ever "morally correct," but it is understandable, forgivable, and even necessary in some situations.
Killing animals is neither morally correct nor incorrect, and is simply a part of nature. Although causing undue suffering I believe is beneath us as humans, as we have the capacity to understand the harm we are causing.
I get what you're saying, but I think using animals as an example might not be the best choice. After all, we have many alternatives to eating meat that provide the same nutritional benefits as not eating meat. And many studies show that not eating meat can be healthier.
If there is a 'truly morally correct' action, I think that killing could most certainly be morally correct. In some circumstances, I'd argue that it is even truly morally incorrect to not kill.
There's a common ethical thought project called the trolley problem. I'll be utilizing a derivative of it, to try to make what I'm talking about painfully clear.
---
Your name is John, and you work in a train yard, operating switches. These switches move the train tracks, to allow trains to cross from one set of tracks to another, letting trains go in more than one predetermined route. One day, you have a run in with Time-travelling Hitler. Time travelling Hitler is literally Hitler. He's a pretty bad guy. For some inexplicable reason, Hitler travels through time with five newborn Jew babies.
There's a train coming down the tracks. The switch is currently in position A. Position A makes the train travel down track a. Moving the switch to position B sends the train down track b. Seeing that the train is coming down track a, Hitler places the five Jew babies on track a. From your vantage point above the track, you can see that they will most assuredly all be killed. There's not enough time to call the conductor of the train and get it to stop in time.
As Hitler is running away from his devious deed, his foot gets lodged between the train tracks of track b. He's stuck! Here's where the moral question comes in. Do you save the newborn babies or not?
---
If you choose to, the only choice you have is to pull the switch to position B. The train rumbles down track b, crushing time traveling Hitler. If you hadn't pulled the switch, Hitler would have lived. You have killed Hitler.
But you're not a murder, right? Perhaps you choose not to pull the switch, and save the newborn babies. You leave the switch in position A, the train rumbles down track a; and the five babies are killed. You technically did not kill anyone. You didn't act, but that's a far stone throw away from actually killing someone.
This situation doesn't provide any bloodless outcome. Any choice, or even the lack of choice, constitutes a dramatic end. For me, the choice is very simple. I would much rather sacrifice the one (especially someone who was attempting to murder the others) than let the five newborn children die. I would argue that it is morally wrong to sit back and allow this disaster to occur, when you have 100 percent control to change the outcome. In this situation, choosing not to kill is morally wrong.
As for if choosing to pull the lever and kill time travelling Hitler is truly morally correct or not? That's more a matter of definition.
Join the Discussion
That's a difficult question, and I don't think it's a true dichotomy.
I don't think the taking of a human life is ever the most morally correct action. However, that doesn't mean that it can't be a morally correct choice at all. For instance, if you see a person about to kill a small child with a gun, the most morally correct choice might be to be an experienced MMA fighter who can disarm and incapacitate the assailant without killing. However, preserving the life of an innocent is still more morally correct than standing by and doing nothing, even if saving that life requires taking another.
(All of the above is simply my opinion, of course)
Killing people I don't ever believe is ever "morally correct," but it is understandable, forgivable, and even necessary in some situations.
Killing animals is neither morally correct nor incorrect, and is simply a part of nature. Although causing undue suffering I believe is beneath us as humans, as we have the capacity to understand the harm we are causing.
I get what you're saying, but I think using animals as an example might not be the best choice. After all, we have many alternatives to eating meat that provide the same nutritional benefits as not eating meat. And many studies show that not eating meat can be healthier.
If there is a 'truly morally correct' action, I think that killing could most certainly be morally correct. In some circumstances, I'd argue that it is even truly morally incorrect to not kill.
There's a common ethical thought project called the trolley problem. I'll be utilizing a derivative of it, to try to make what I'm talking about painfully clear.
---
Your name is John, and you work in a train yard, operating switches. These switches move the train tracks, to allow trains to cross from one set of tracks to another, letting trains go in more than one predetermined route. One day, you have a run in with Time-travelling Hitler. Time travelling Hitler is literally Hitler. He's a pretty bad guy. For some inexplicable reason, Hitler travels through time with five newborn Jew babies.
There's a train coming down the tracks. The switch is currently in position A. Position A makes the train travel down track a. Moving the switch to position B sends the train down track b. Seeing that the train is coming down track a, Hitler places the five Jew babies on track a. From your vantage point above the track, you can see that they will most assuredly all be killed. There's not enough time to call the conductor of the train and get it to stop in time.
As Hitler is running away from his devious deed, his foot gets lodged between the train tracks of track b. He's stuck! Here's where the moral question comes in. Do you save the newborn babies or not?
---
If you choose to, the only choice you have is to pull the switch to position B. The train rumbles down track b, crushing time traveling Hitler. If you hadn't pulled the switch, Hitler would have lived. You have killed Hitler.
But you're not a murder, right? Perhaps you choose not to pull the switch, and save the newborn babies. You leave the switch in position A, the train rumbles down track a; and the five babies are killed. You technically did not kill anyone. You didn't act, but that's a far stone throw away from actually killing someone.
This situation doesn't provide any bloodless outcome. Any choice, or even the lack of choice, constitutes a dramatic end. For me, the choice is very simple. I would much rather sacrifice the one (especially someone who was attempting to murder the others) than let the five newborn children die. I would argue that it is morally wrong to sit back and allow this disaster to occur, when you have 100 percent control to change the outcome. In this situation, choosing not to kill is morally wrong.
As for if choosing to pull the lever and kill time travelling Hitler is truly morally correct or not? That's more a matter of definition.