Value and Protect Human Life: 4 Principles - Research Paper

Introduction

Human life bears a high moral sanctity that everyone is obliged to it is a moral obligation that is expected of everyone and at all times. It is the principle of the value of life; it demands that life has to be valued and protected. Human life is sacred in the sense that everyone should observe the highest form of obedience to the respect of life. In the case of taking human life, four basics are ever in line with the matter. The primary principles that relate to taking human life include; justice, life's value, goodness, and freedom. Other principle values such as honest can be connected to suicide, but they only occur to be true when the situation at hand is relatable. For instance, if a person takes his own life because of wrongful information or through dishonesty, then this could be a principle to committing suicide. The article will look at the philosophies related to the taking of life and the concepts that are associated with the main topic.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

In any discussion that relates to suicide, goodness, and life are the priority factors that come to place. Morality and experience are a priority to talk of death because they hold the moral value and obligation that relates to the act of suicide. As pointed earlier, life is sacred and ought to be respected at all time and by all means. The holder of life has the ultimate control over their lives, and this means that they should be taught about the virtue of good since it helps in the determination to act morally and justly especially in the case that one wishes to take their own life. Although the holder of life has absolute control and power of his life, it does not mean that the rest of society doesn't hold a part in their lives. The community and everyone else is mandated to take care of and protect the life of their members. (Lazar, Seth, 20)

Various ethical theories relate to life and how the sacredness of life should be handled. The approaches include the following:

Consequentialist Theories

The first approach to the consequentialist theory is the Utilitarian approach. The strategy states that the best form of life is one that has little distress and pain. Ethically, the method is described in a way that actions and are either corrupt or right depending on the degree and amount of pain or pleasure produced. The utilitarian approach is mostly used in making ethical decisions, especially when it concerns a large of people. It relates primarily to decisions that rest upon a large group because it begs us to ascertain whether our cause of action is good or bad and the impact that the move will have on the rest of the people. The approach hits us that by our actions, the might be good or bad that will be the result at the end. Therefore, the ethical obligation that one needs to ask themselves is whether their actions will be era more competent at the end. (Frowe, Helen, 12)

Life is a virtue that is morally guided by goodness. Our efforts should be reflected to impact people positively and not in the negative. Life demands that our actions bear more good than bad, and that is the approach that the utilitarian approach presents. Suicide, for instance, is an action that causes havoc and pain to the loved one of the dead. It is an action that only leads to more pain and despair and therefore is not a moral action to take as per the utilitarian approach.

The second approach is Egoistic approach. Ethically it is commonly referred to as the self-interest. The approach advocates for an individual to self-evaluate the amount of good that their action will have on the rest of the people - ethics of life advocates for one to have respect for themselves and to others. According to egoistic approach, self-interests is a recipe for self-respect and to the others. It is the goodness of life, the ability to act justly without harming anyone in the process. It is a moral obligation that everyone has to ask themselves before undertaking an action that can lead to more harm and fear to the rest.

The latter approach is the common right approach which advocated for actions which are driven towards a common good of the entire society. Efforts of individuals should be directed towards ensuring a common good and will at the expense of the others. The ethically advocates for the collective will of every individual to ensure that their actions are driven towards maintaining a common good of the others in society. The best-case reference that can be used in this view is the Iraq war. The war attracted a lot of o parties who had a mutual interest for the benefit of the others in their societies. The civil war attracts millions of death and human suffering as people try to flee and seek safety in other countries. The prominent players in the warlike the United States should push for mediation and a shared understanding between the different societies to maintain peace and order in the country. It is a collective will that the United States could take to bring together the various communities for the common good of the world at large.

Championing for mediation and peace is an ethical approach that would have saved more lives and peace would have prevailed for the common good of the rest of the world. Such ethical methods much aspire for change and a peaceful world where everyone gets to live a happy life without any fear of despair of a lost loved one. It is the responsibility of us all to protect and preserve life any means necessary.

Non-Consequentialist Theories

The first approach to non-consequential theory is a duty-based approach that looks at the relevance and importance of the will of a person and their intentions towards the others. The approach conforms to the biblical ideology of good intention and the ability to act in ways that will bring good not only to you but to the rest of the people. Intentions should guide us on our actions because they have an impact on the results of what will come from the actions. Life is a gift that should be guarded and protected; by all means, intentions to our actions should not result in pain or suffering to the other person. In the case of rape, such actions can result in significant pain and suffering to the other person. The intention to rape is not ethically right because it does not respect the quality of goodness in life.

Other related imperative actions to this approach are acting on the maxim that can translate to a universal aspect, for instance telling lies is not an ethical behavior because at no time can lying be justified in the world. Truth, on the other hand, is a virtue that can be maximized in a universal capacity because it denotes goodwill and intention in all fields of action. By acting in a manner that is regarded to be ethical in the global ability and thereby acting on our own will and intention. (Vaughn, Lewis, 9)

The second approach is the rights approach is one that works on the moral grounds that the ethical actions respect the moral rights of those affected by the same effect. It is an approach that emphasizes the fact that dignity is a right to every human. Right to dignity not only relates to oneself but also to those whose actions will affect. The principal factors of life are good, and this means every effort must uphold the virtue of goodness and dignity by all means. Rape, for instance, is an action that accords no dignity to humanity because it brings shame and suffering to the person affected. Taking one's life also holds no dignity to humanity because the action goes against the qualities and fundamentals of the sacredness of life.

The third approach is the justice approach, which defines ethics to actions which can be selected freely and rationally by individuals in scenarios of equality. The approach majorly reflects itself on the determination of just at the beginning of an action. Moral behavior to human life demands that we all identify and act on means that will result in good to the others. In the case of terminal cancer, choosing freely a procedure that is ethically right towards such a deadly process is morally right because the decision was acted upon on the grounds of free will and just. In the determination of eliminating life, only approaches should be evaluated first to ascertain if free will and ethical means were followed to ensure that the results of the action cannot be questioned and do not bring.

The Virtue Perspective

It explains that every ethical action should be geared towards the ideal virtues of human nature. It is an ethical approach that is mainly concerned with the wholeness of an individual, and therefore it demands a process that involves learning and training which essential to create an understanding of how to practice in ethical ways. The virtue seeks for one to evaluate their actions to the kind of persons that we should be in this universe. Doing good and observing nature and equality in life takes into consideration a process that will require an ethical act. Life should be kept in that manner because it allows evaluating themselves and what the world expects of them.

Conclusion

The responsibility by the society to protect each other's life explains why there are laws set such as laws against rape, murder, and even laws that prohibit one from taking their own life. The big question that often follows this huge responsibility to take care of and protect the others life is why we should keep safeguarding and guarding an experience that the owner has already decided to end? The question above beats moral obligation and conscience that everyone bears as far as life and suicide are concerned. It is a critical discussion and factor that has to be addressed with a lot of care since no matter how we feel towards death and the negative attitude we would wish to per take in that sense, life remains to be sacred and protecting it is a responsibility that everyone ought to observe.

Works Cited

Frowe, Helen. The ethics of war and peace: an introduction. Routledge, 2015.

Lazar, Seth. "In dubious battle: uncertainty and the ethics of killing." Philosophical Studies 175.4 (2018): 859-883.

Vaughn, Lewis. Doing ethics: Moral reasoning and contemporary issues. WW Norton & Company, 2015.