Is There Such a Thing as a Justified Killing Is All Murder Morally Wrong?

¶ … justified killing? Is all murder morally wrong?

There has always been much controversy regarding the concept of justified killing, as while some prefer to believe that it is ethical to murder particular individuals in certain circumstances other consider that it is never right to kill, regardless of the situation. People typically perceive justified killing as an instance in which an individual murders another individual with the purpose of preventing the respective person from being an impending threat to others. In spite of the fact that there are numerous situations in which the contemporary social order considers that it is justified to kill someone, all murders are essentially morally wrong.

While some might be inclined to believe that the expression "you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs" only applies to material ideas, others believe that there is nothing wrong with killing innocent individuals as long as many others survive as a result of their death. All things considered, it is never right to kill an innocent person, regardless of the outcome of this act. "To shed innocent blood is both morally reprehensive and irrational. It is even doubtful whether it is morally right and rational to shed uninnocent blood" (Tangwa 213).

The campaign against capital punishment has experienced much progress in the recent years and many first-world countries have come to abandon this practice as a result of acknowledging its wrongness. Even with this, the campaign has had limited results in some circumstances because people could not perceive the presence of mercy in a situation when someone is known to have committed irreparable damage.

Pain is especially wrong and it is immoral to inflict on any creature that can feel it. One can actually feel inclined to consider that any person who commits such an act is a sadist. By looking at the concept of torture people are likely to find it easier to understand why it is wrong to kill a person. The United Nations and institutions focused on human rights have concentrated on emphasizing the wrongness of killing and have struggled to influence individuals in adopting a disagreeing attitude in regard to the concept.

Philosophy has traditionally been actively involved in discussing in regard to the idea of justified killing and concerning the moments when it is right to murder an individual. The concept of just war has dominated most topics and has influenced individuals in starting to express doubt about whether or not war enables people to kill other people. When considering dictators who torture individuals and who kill large numbers of people in their country it only seems fair for international actors to do anything in their power in order to stop them. If murder is the only solution to the problem there is nothing wrong with killing a murderer as long as many other individuals stay alive as a result. If the bodies involved in deciding the best solution to such an issue are authorized to act, murder is not wrong when considering ideas promoted in the present-day society (Principles of the Just War).

Soldiers have a really tough time as they participate in conflicts because they are unable to differentiate between right and wrong in some situations. Even if they know that it is essential for them to murder the enemy because he or she is responsible for a great deal of crimes, they find it difficult to actually murder soldiers belonging to the other camp. It is not just that these soldiers kill their enemies, as they kill other human beings. Just-war supporters believe that one cannot blame a soldier for killing another soldier, as the respective individual simply acted in accordance with his or her orders and cannot be considered responsible for the killing. However, murdering someone can have a particularly negative effect on a person, considering that he or she will never be able to look at humans as he or she did before. Knowing the simplicity with which one can take another person's life makes it difficult for one to appreciate the full extent of killing individuals.

There are numerous reasons why someone can consider murder of any nature as being wrong:

It dehumanizes killers

It denies someone the right to live in spite of the fact that this is one of the most important rights available to humanity

It influences the social order in getting a distorted image of the concept of life

It occurs in unjustifiable conditions in most cases involving two combatants (belonging to opposing camps) during an armed conflict

Self-defense is probably one of the most common concepts influencing individuals in considering that it is sometimes justified to murder a person. As long as an individual poses an imminent threat to another individual, the latter cannot simply stand by and allow him or herself to be murdered and needs to act. "Even pacifists, staunchly opposed to war, have typically not questioned the legitimacy of personal self-defense, notwithstanding the fact that most wars tend to be rationalized in terms of national self-defense" (Kaufman 1).

Society needs to understand that violence is never a solution to its problems, regardless of circumstances. History has demonstrated this with numerous occasions, but people seem to ignore the fact that violence has always made it difficult for them to look at things from an objective point-of-view. The fact that they knew that killing someone is wrong influenced them in understanding that any problem that is solved with murder cannot possibly yield positive results in the long run. As long as human lives are wasted for a greater purpose, the respective objective is associated with immoral concepts and most individuals are probable to express lack of support concerning its background.