Is it morally permissible to kill one innocent person as a means to Essay

Is it morally permissible to kill one simple mortal as a means to saving some larger number of innocent peoples lives Why - demonstrate ExampleHowever, according to Kantian principle, our duty is to do certain involvements irrespective of the motive, at least non from a sense of duty. Sometimes one may do something he or she thinks is the flop thing to do but in the end the act is ill-timed. For example, killing one person to save more than others may seem right but killing is a crime and as much(prenominal) it is wrong no matter what reason it was intended. So what makes right acts right? Is morality relative or living? These are questions that we need to ask ourselves in invest to standard right and wrong actions. The specific honorable issue to be tackled by this paper is whether it is permissible to kill one innocent person as a means to saving some larger number of innocent peoples lives. I lead argue that it is morally permissible to kill one innocent person as it leads to the sterling(prenominal) safe(p) of all at least based on Professor Moores moral surmisal. at that place is no question that society aims at ensuring the felicity of all and this would be achieved if many lives are saved. The contention in this case, is the means to achieve this goal. Is it by sacrificing an innocent person or allowing others to die? In order to answer this question, we need to understand what it means to be morally permissible. ... In this paper thus it depart be taken for granted that morality is relative. As such, it depends on the circumstances at the time of the event. It may not be the act one ought to has done thus a duty to do as expressed by Kant but the right action given the circumstances. For example, if one man threatens the life of others it is still right to kill that person to preserve the rights of those others. However, everyone has a duty to protect life and as such killing is wrong. One ought not to take another persons life irre spective of the situation. The opened of morality is thus very confusing and always leads to ethical dilemmas. According to normative ethical theory such as utilitarianism it is assumed that the right act is always the one that results to greatest possible happiness (PHL 275 Week Six p.1) or according to Professor Moores ideal utilitarianism actions productive of more heartfelt than could have been produced by any other action open to the agent (Ross 16). This means that we often do not know what is right or wrong because we cannot tell what the outcomes of doing a certain action will be. Every member of society has an inalienable right to liberty, property and pursuit of happiness and as such, promoting the good of the community is the ultimate aim. Now consider killing an innocent person for the sake of other innocent people. For example, a driver may opt to knock down a pedestrian to avoid colliding with an moving vehicle thus saving the lives of many innocent people. Is this morally permissible? According to consequentialist utilitarianism, the act is right only if it leads to producing more good or happiness. I would like to assume that many people would