Assuming morality is a human convention where social mechanisms serve to modify individuals behaviors for the benefit of society as a whole, then the ethicist must find out if there is an instance of killing that is beneficial to society as a whole. An issue is that there are different kinds of societies and many if not all human societies are not built with the intent to provide for the well being of the general population. For instance feudal society did not exist of the benefit of the serf and bourgeois classes, it served to benefit the feudal lords, and as such the system of morality in these societies reflected this.
Luckily for us, our modern era of liberal democracy is an era which society at least attempts to work for the benefit of its entirety instead of a privileged class or other group.
If morality could be perfectly enforced then the best state of affairs would be if no one killed anyone ever. But unfortunately because this could not possibly be enforced there will be situations where killing occurs outside the bounds of morality.
Then are there any morally legitimate acts of killing? The only possible instance that comes to mind is as a mechanism for punishment (i.e. you killed, you will now be killed for killing). So then is killing the most effective mechanism for punishment/correction? I'm not sure, but maybe other methods of punishment should be explored before resorting to this most extreme punishment.
No comments:
Post a Comment