Photo: Flickr/Hannaford

Questioning the Morality of Killing (Using Popular TV and Movie Scenarios)

What makes killing—the heinous act of robbing someone of their life—right? What makes it wrong? The line is thin at best, but it still remains. Beliefs vary from philosopher to philosopher, politician to politician, and person to person, yet it seems that no one can truly make a conclusion concerning the moral nature of non-natural death.

Setting aside self-defense, since the majority accepts that as a moral reason to kill, I want to look at the act of taking another’s life in its more controversial sense. This article can easily end up looking like a philosophy paper, so I only wish to briefly address certain theories to give context. From there, I will address certain dilemmas from a select few TV shows and movies, voicing my opinion throughout; ideally, I’ll be able to determine when killing someone is right and when it’s wrong.

As an overview, the most general questions are as follows:

Is it right to kill x because he killed y?

Is it right to kill x to save y?

Is it right to spare x at the expense of y?

Let’s start with some philosophical theories. First and foremost, there’s Subjectivism, which is one of the most well-known theories since many follow this without even knowing it. Subjectivism states that what is right and wrong is determined by the individual, with that determination strictly applying to that person.

Second is Utilitarianism, which states that that which serves the most good is the right thing to do. For example, if killing one saves two or more others, you are obligated to kill that single person because two is greater than one.

As for Ethical Egoism, this theory states that we must follow our ego and only perform actions that benefit our self-interest. So, this theory implies that being selfish is the way to go!

Lastly, I want to mention Divine Command Theory, which argues that morality and religion are inherently intertwined. Consequently, what is right and wrong is solely determined by God.

 Warning: Spoilers of various shows and films ahead. 

With all the boring academic stuff out of the way, it’s time to dive into some pop culture. With so many different things to choose from, the sections that follow were difficult to pick. Thus, if you don’t see something that you thought was a prime example of this article’s topic, I apologize.  

The Morality of Killing: Vigilantism

Below is a clip from Daredevil (S2E3) that has our main protagonist—Matt Murdock, AKA Daredevil—conversing with Frank Castle, who is alternatively known as the Punisher. In this heated banter stands polar opposites; the Punisher believes the best way to eliminate a criminal is by killing them, while Daredevil believes every single person in the world can be redeemed. Thus, he either turns his targets over to the police or lets them walk with a warning—after pulverizing them, of course.

Murdock’s argument revolves around two main points: Each and every human being should be given the opportunity to try to be good, and we, as people, should hope that everyone has at least a shred of good in them. Killing robs people of both these chances.

Contrarily, Castle’s argument is centered around one thesis: Bad people should be put down permanently so that they don’t have the chance to get back up and sin again. Both of these sides are valid, but they are also both based on chance—the chance that they’ll try to be good and the chance that they’ll regress. Furthermore, both positions are subjective, as their beliefs influence them. Murdock is Catholic, and this faith translates into a large quantity of hope and atonement. As a consequence, he believes that all can be redeemed.

Notably, there’s a hint of the Divine Command Theory here, as his reasoning for not killing in his “line of work” as a vigilante is based on his Catholicism. Castle, on the other hand, has a military history and, on top of that, came home from service only to have his wife and children murdered by criminals. From this, it’s easy to see why he seeks justice through death.

Matt Murdock at confession

My stance in this debate is aligned with Murdock’s but not for the same faith-based reasons; however, I do acknowledge that I am slightly subjective in this case. I want to lead with a quote from philosopher Jean Hampton that illustrates my opinion rather well: “…the only thing human beings ‘deserve’ in this life is good, that no matter what evil a person has committed, no one is justified in doing further evil to her.”

Life is sacred, and it is my belief that, no matter the circumstances, whenever the question is “should I kill x because he killed y?” I believe the answer is no. Life should not be taken for any reason other than to save your own. If we kill, we are no better than the murderers we claim to be better than. Furthermore, I concur with Murdock’s sentiment that all are capable of redemption: We are not born bad, and I believe no man is wholly evil. Thus, as Daredevil tells the Punisher, “Redemption, Frank: it’s real, it’s possible. The people you murdered deserve another chance to try.”

The Worth of a Life

The section about Daredevil focused on the overall concept of killing and its rightness or wrongness in its most basic nature. However, now I wish to target more specific aspects, namely the aforementioned abstraction: Is it right to kill x to save y? This dilemma is present in both The 100 and Lucifer.

Let’s begin with The 100. This series was heavily centered on certain characters rationalizing and justifying their decisions made to kill others for the sake of survival, so choosing specific scenarios was rather difficult. However, I found the situation of the “Mountain Men” to be the most interesting.

For those who haven’t watched, the Mountain Men are a small group of people who survived the human-instigated apocalypse within Mount Weather. After years of living there, the people that escaped to space to survive the cataclysm returned to Earth, but there was one key difference between the two groups: Those who came from space had bodies well-equipped for radiation and could thus walk freely outside, whereas the Mountain Men were unable to survive the radiation as a result of living under a mountain for so long.

The Mountain Men’s “Harvest Project,” overseen by their Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Lorelei Tsing

Now, I realize that this is the SparkNotes version of the plot, but to establish it in its entirety would take quite a bit of time. Nonetheless, it allows me to approach the dilemma effectively. To survive, the Mountain Men must harvest blood (and later bone marrow) from those who are immune to the levels of radiation present so that they can counter the fatal side effects that the radiation has on them. In their endeavors, the Mountain Men bleed those people dry and ultimately kill them. So, now I ask, are the Mountain Men justified in killing others for the sake of their own survival? What makes their lives more worthy than others’ lives?

Before I voice my opinion, I want to bring up the scenario in Lucifer that demonstrates the same problem. In this TV series, Lucifer’s brother Uriel comes to Earth to collect on a deal he made with God, and Lucifer doesn’t want to come through. Thus, Uriel threatens the life of Lucifer’s love interest, Chloe Decker. In the heat of their final confrontation, the Lightbringer strikes down his brother. So, I ask again, what makes the life of Chloe Decker more important than that of Uriel?

Uriel is confronting Lucifer with Azrael’s blade. The Devil’s time is up, and he must decide to either uphold his deal with God or forfeit Chloe’s life

This concept of one life being greater than another is largely reflective of Subjectivism, but more prominently Egoism due to self-interest often being subjective. Both the Mountain Men and Lucifer pursue their self-interest, as the former wants to survive and the latter wants Chloe Decker for himself. But does this, as Ethical Egoism suggests, make it right to kill? I think not.

Some may argue that this is essentially self-defense, but the difference here is that those being killed for the sake of survival are not actively trying to murder you. Uriel is not trying to kill Lucifer, nor are the people from space trying to kill the Mountain Men (until they figure out what they are doing to their brethren, that is). To act on the decision that one life holds more worth than another is essentially to play God because we would be deciding their fate prior to nature. This, I suppose, makes sense in the case of Lucifer but not in the case of the Mountain Men, who are mere humans.

Keep in mind, I do not agree with Lucifer’s action. I am merely stating that this character is typically seen to do everything God doesn’t want. With this in mind, the portrayal of the Mountain Men and Uriel as villains is inaccurate. Yes, I know that I just said that taking a life in exchange for another is wrong (except self-defense). However, in both the Mountain Men’s and Uriel’s minds, they were doing the right thing for themselves and those they love, which brings me to the next point of analysis.

Thanos’ Snap and the Greater Good

For those who haven’t seen Avengers: Infinity War, the main antagonist, Thanos, aims to gather all the infinity stones, which are massive power sources, so that he can have the power to eliminate half the universe’s population. The reason behind his quest is that he wants to save the universe from collapsing due to overpopulation.

Much like the previous examples, Thanos believes that he is doing the right thing. This trait is more characteristic of an anti-hero, not a villain. His actions are even justified by Utilitarianism, as the entire world would be saved at the expense of half the population. However, contrary to the previous examples, Thanos does not act subjectively or egotistically; instead, he takes an objective stance to pursue the interest of the planet. Here’s a short clip from the movie that illustrates some of Thanos’ past and his view on the quest he has undertaken:

To preface my opinion on the matter, I want to lead with a quote from novelist and screenwriter Sheri Holman: “Good and Evil are opposite points on a circle…Greater good is just halfway back to Bad.”

Is killing half of the universe the just move? To answer this objectively is tricky, but I think it is wrong for one main reason. The future of destruction due to overpopulation that Thanos experienced on his own planet and foresees for the universe is merely a possibility. Thus, as I mentioned earlier, it is especially wrong to kill based on chance. However, I want to look at the other side of this conflict, assuming that Thanos’ prediction of the universe’s demise is fact: Were the Avengers wrong in trying to stop him? I think yes because not only would they be taking his life to prevent him from completing his goal, but they’d also be dooming the entire universe to the fate of death.

No matter what the endgame is, I believe that killing is immoral, even when the reason for it is objective and in favor of the “greater good.” After all, the “greater good” is just a bad justification to make something evil look good.

The Death Penalty: Blood for Blood

The last type of killing I want to address originated in ancient times: the iconic concept of “an eye for an eye.” Returning to The 100, this idea permeates throughout the entire series. The human race essentially started over again after an apocalyptic nuclear war, so it makes sense to return to an array of laws that resembles earlier civilizations. One scene that demonstrates this in particular is the execution of Finn, one of the space people.

A quick note on the plot: When the people from space arrived at Earth, they inadvertently destroyed a town of the Grounders, which are the humans who survived the Earth’s artificial destruction and repopulated but are a different and much larger group from the Mountain Men. For reasons that further the story, Finn murdered several Grounders, and to serve justice, the leader of the Grounders wanted to execute him.

In the following video (S2E8), Clarke, one of the people from space, kills Finn quickly to spare him from an agonizing death by the hands of the Grounders.

What we have here is a rudimentary death penalty, and no matter what method is used to carry it through, I believe that it is immoral. If we look at the theories discussed earlier, we can see that the death penalty is sometimes supported by Utilitarianism, as it can occasionally have more good in its outcome than bad, and it is also sometimes supported by Subjectivism, as some people do believe it is the right thing to do.

Anyway, coming back to the video, Finn was driven to murder the Grounders by his love for Clarke, and it is clear that many of the people from space love him too, as reflected by their reactions to his passing. Daredevil claimed that every person has a spark of good in them, no matter how big, and having Finn killed for the sake of vengeance, not justice, snuffs out that spark forever, removes his chance to become better, and robs those that love him from a lifetime together. Killing him won’t bring those he killed back, and taking life is not “honorable.” It is just wrong.

Another example that conveys the death penalty quite well is from Assassin’s Creed. In this video, our main protagonist is confronted by a priest before his sentencing for murder. I find this quite ironic because they are the ones punishing him, not God.

It is clear that he’s scared, as he shakes the entire way through, even if the injection is “painless.” However, no matter the method of execution, Death Row is a vicious and appalling business. The death penalty treats the prisoners as animals, as capital punishment dehumanizes as well as kills.

Furthermore, just like an eye for an eye, a life for a life is a law of retaliation. If a person cuts out the eye of another, the government will not punish the criminal by taking their eye out as well because it is considered cruel and unusual punishment. Thus, what makes killing a criminal because they have taken another life any different?  If you answer this by saying, “Well, it’s a life, and a life is a whole other ball-game because it is our most valued possession and can’t be ‘paid’ for,” then by that logic, we shouldn’t kill the criminal for that precise reason. How can we justify a law of retaliation while we look down upon others? In my eyes, the death penalty is both immoral and evil because emotion fuels it.

To clarify, I’m not saying that a person is wrong to want vengeance upon the person who killed someone they love; that’s human. What I’m criticizing is acting upon that desire in the form of the death penalty.

I want to finish this section with a quote from lawyer Bryan Stevenson: “The death penalty is not about whether people deserve to die for the crimes they commit. The real question of capital punishment in this country is, ‘Do we deserve to kill?’”

All people are created equal, and for one to hold the power of life and death over another gives an inhuman advantage. We don’t deserve to kill because when we do, while our power may grow, our humanity declines.

Even Monsters Deserve to Live

When considering the morality of killing, even a “monster” deserves life, which can been illustrated from this example in Supernatural (S7E3).

Here, one of our main characters, Dean, is working a case and finally tracks down Amy, the creature who killed an innocent man. Even though she said she only killed because her son was starving (yes, 99 percent of monsters in this series eat humans), she promised she wouldn’t do it again. That said, Dean has an apparently clear opinion: All monsters are bad, and it is in their nature to kill, as he remarks, “You are what you are. You will kill again.”

In the real world, many think the same of criminals. Regardless of personal opinions, and regardless of who is being killed, there is always someone out there—dead or alive—who will mourn them, as the son of the “monster” Dean kills watches the entire scene. Therefore, more suffering is created as a consequence. In my eyes, killing will always be wrong and immoral. Death is tragic no matter where it roams.



2 followers

I am a double major in Philosophy and History with a minor in English: creative writing. I've always enjoyed philosophy a great deal, and history as well - especially of the ancient and medieval eras. Above all else, however, I absolutely love music and gaming. I'm a big Blizzard nerd who loves to play World of Warcraft, Overwatch, Hearthstone, and the rest of their line up. To sum up all my passions, writing is the overarching theme: whenever something interests me, I'll write about it.

Want to start sharing your mind and have your voice heard?

Join our community of awesome contributing writers and start publishing now.

LEARN MORE


ENGAGE IN THE CONVERSATION

Questioning the Morality of Killing (Using Popular TV and Movie Scenarios)

What makes killing—the heinous act of robbing someone of their life—right? What makes it wrong? The line is thin at best, but it still remains. Beliefs vary from philosopher to philosopher, politician to politician, and person to person, yet it seems that no one can truly make a conclusion concerning the moral nature of non-natural death.

Setting aside self-defense, since the majority accepts that as a moral reason to kill, I want to look at the act of taking another’s life in its more controversial sense. This article can easily end up looking like a philosophy paper, so I only wish to briefly address certain theories to give context. From there, I will address certain dilemmas from a select few TV shows and movies, voicing my opinion throughout; ideally, I’ll be able to determine when killing someone is right and when it’s wrong.

As an overview, the most general questions are as follows:

Is it right to kill x because he killed y?

Is it right to kill x to save y?

Is it right to spare x at the expense of y?

Let’s start with some philosophical theories. First and foremost, there’s Subjectivism, which is one of the most well-known theories since many follow this without even knowing it. Subjectivism states that what is right and wrong is determined by the individual, with that determination strictly applying to that person.

Second is Utilitarianism, which states that that which serves the most good is the right thing to do. For example, if killing one saves two or more others, you are obligated to kill that single person because two is greater than one.

As for Ethical Egoism, this theory states that we must follow our ego and only perform actions that benefit our self-interest. So, this theory implies that being selfish is the way to go!

Lastly, I want to mention Divine Command Theory, which argues that morality and religion are inherently intertwined. Consequently, what is right and wrong is solely determined by God.

 Warning: Spoilers of various shows and films ahead. 

With all the boring academic stuff out of the way, it’s time to dive into some pop culture. With so many different things to choose from, the sections that follow were difficult to pick. Thus, if you don’t see something that you thought was a prime example of this article’s topic, I apologize.  

The Morality of Killing: Vigilantism

Below is a clip from Daredevil (S2E3) that has our main protagonist—Matt Murdock, AKA Daredevil—conversing with Frank Castle, who is alternatively known as the Punisher. In this heated banter stands polar opposites; the Punisher believes the best way to eliminate a criminal is by killing them, while Daredevil believes every single person in the world can be redeemed. Thus, he either turns his targets over to the police or lets them walk with a warning—after pulverizing them, of course.

Murdock’s argument revolves around two main points: Each and every human being should be given the opportunity to try to be good, and we, as people, should hope that everyone has at least a shred of good in them. Killing robs people of both these chances.

Contrarily, Castle’s argument is centered around one thesis: Bad people should be put down permanently so that they don’t have the chance to get back up and sin again. Both of these sides are valid, but they are also both based on chance—the chance that they’ll try to be good and the chance that they’ll regress. Furthermore, both positions are subjective, as their beliefs influence them. Murdock is Catholic, and this faith translates into a large quantity of hope and atonement. As a consequence, he believes that all can be redeemed.

Notably, there’s a hint of the Divine Command Theory here, as his reasoning for not killing in his “line of work” as a vigilante is based on his Catholicism. Castle, on the other hand, has a military history and, on top of that, came home from service only to have his wife and children murdered by criminals. From this, it’s easy to see why he seeks justice through death.

Matt Murdock at confession

My stance in this debate is aligned with Murdock’s but not for the same faith-based reasons; however, I do acknowledge that I am slightly subjective in this case. I want to lead with a quote from philosopher Jean Hampton that illustrates my opinion rather well: “…the only thing human beings ‘deserve’ in this life is good, that no matter what evil a person has committed, no one is justified in doing further evil to her.”

Life is sacred, and it is my belief that, no matter the circumstances, whenever the question is “should I kill x because he killed y?” I believe the answer is no. Life should not be taken for any reason other than to save your own. If we kill, we are no better than the murderers we claim to be better than. Furthermore, I concur with Murdock’s sentiment that all are capable of redemption: We are not born bad, and I believe no man is wholly evil. Thus, as Daredevil tells the Punisher, “Redemption, Frank: it’s real, it’s possible. The people you murdered deserve another chance to try.”

The Worth of a Life

The section about Daredevil focused on the overall concept of killing and its rightness or wrongness in its most basic nature. However, now I wish to target more specific aspects, namely the aforementioned abstraction: Is it right to kill x to save y? This dilemma is present in both The 100 and Lucifer.

Let’s begin with The 100. This series was heavily centered on certain characters rationalizing and justifying their decisions made to kill others for the sake of survival, so choosing specific scenarios was rather difficult. However, I found the situation of the “Mountain Men” to be the most interesting.

For those who haven’t watched, the Mountain Men are a small group of people who survived the human-instigated apocalypse within Mount Weather. After years of living there, the people that escaped to space to survive the cataclysm returned to Earth, but there was one key difference between the two groups: Those who came from space had bodies well-equipped for radiation and could thus walk freely outside, whereas the Mountain Men were unable to survive the radiation as a result of living under a mountain for so long.

The Mountain Men’s “Harvest Project,” overseen by their Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Lorelei Tsing

Now, I realize that this is the SparkNotes version of the plot, but to establish it in its entirety would take quite a bit of time. Nonetheless, it allows me to approach the dilemma effectively. To survive, the Mountain Men must harvest blood (and later bone marrow) from those who are immune to the levels of radiation present so that they can counter the fatal side effects that the radiation has on them. In their endeavors, the Mountain Men bleed those people dry and ultimately kill them. So, now I ask, are the Mountain Men justified in killing others for the sake of their own survival? What makes their lives more worthy than others’ lives?

Before I voice my opinion, I want to bring up the scenario in Lucifer that demonstrates the same problem. In this TV series, Lucifer’s brother Uriel comes to Earth to collect on a deal he made with God, and Lucifer doesn’t want to come through. Thus, Uriel threatens the life of Lucifer’s love interest, Chloe Decker. In the heat of their final confrontation, the Lightbringer strikes down his brother. So, I ask again, what makes the life of Chloe Decker more important than that of Uriel?

Uriel is confronting Lucifer with Azrael’s blade. The Devil’s time is up, and he must decide to either uphold his deal with God or forfeit Chloe’s life

This concept of one life being greater than another is largely reflective of Subjectivism, but more prominently Egoism due to self-interest often being subjective. Both the Mountain Men and Lucifer pursue their self-interest, as the former wants to survive and the latter wants Chloe Decker for himself. But does this, as Ethical Egoism suggests, make it right to kill? I think not.

Some may argue that this is essentially self-defense, but the difference here is that those being killed for the sake of survival are not actively trying to murder you. Uriel is not trying to kill Lucifer, nor are the people from space trying to kill the Mountain Men (until they figure out what they are doing to their brethren, that is). To act on the decision that one life holds more worth than another is essentially to play God because we would be deciding their fate prior to nature. This, I suppose, makes sense in the case of Lucifer but not in the case of the Mountain Men, who are mere humans.

Keep in mind, I do not agree with Lucifer’s action. I am merely stating that this character is typically seen to do everything God doesn’t want. With this in mind, the portrayal of the Mountain Men and Uriel as villains is inaccurate. Yes, I know that I just said that taking a life in exchange for another is wrong (except self-defense). However, in both the Mountain Men’s and Uriel’s minds, they were doing the right thing for themselves and those they love, which brings me to the next point of analysis.

Thanos’ Snap and the Greater Good

For those who haven’t seen Avengers: Infinity War, the main antagonist, Thanos, aims to gather all the infinity stones, which are massive power sources, so that he can have the power to eliminate half the universe’s population. The reason behind his quest is that he wants to save the universe from collapsing due to overpopulation.

Much like the previous examples, Thanos believes that he is doing the right thing. This trait is more characteristic of an anti-hero, not a villain. His actions are even justified by Utilitarianism, as the entire world would be saved at the expense of half the population. However, contrary to the previous examples, Thanos does not act subjectively or egotistically; instead, he takes an objective stance to pursue the interest of the planet. Here’s a short clip from the movie that illustrates some of Thanos’ past and his view on the quest he has undertaken:

To preface my opinion on the matter, I want to lead with a quote from novelist and screenwriter Sheri Holman: “Good and Evil are opposite points on a circle…Greater good is just halfway back to Bad.”

Is killing half of the universe the just move? To answer this objectively is tricky, but I think it is wrong for one main reason. The future of destruction due to overpopulation that Thanos experienced on his own planet and foresees for the universe is merely a possibility. Thus, as I mentioned earlier, it is especially wrong to kill based on chance. However, I want to look at the other side of this conflict, assuming that Thanos’ prediction of the universe’s demise is fact: Were the Avengers wrong in trying to stop him? I think yes because not only would they be taking his life to prevent him from completing his goal, but they’d also be dooming the entire universe to the fate of death.

No matter what the endgame is, I believe that killing is immoral, even when the reason for it is objective and in favor of the “greater good.” After all, the “greater good” is just a bad justification to make something evil look good.

The Death Penalty: Blood for Blood

The last type of killing I want to address originated in ancient times: the iconic concept of “an eye for an eye.” Returning to The 100, this idea permeates throughout the entire series. The human race essentially started over again after an apocalyptic nuclear war, so it makes sense to return to an array of laws that resembles earlier civilizations. One scene that demonstrates this in particular is the execution of Finn, one of the space people.

A quick note on the plot: When the people from space arrived at Earth, they inadvertently destroyed a town of the Grounders, which are the humans who survived the Earth’s artificial destruction and repopulated but are a different and much larger group from the Mountain Men. For reasons that further the story, Finn murdered several Grounders, and to serve justice, the leader of the Grounders wanted to execute him.

In the following video (S2E8), Clarke, one of the people from space, kills Finn quickly to spare him from an agonizing death by the hands of the Grounders.

What we have here is a rudimentary death penalty, and no matter what method is used to carry it through, I believe that it is immoral. If we look at the theories discussed earlier, we can see that the death penalty is sometimes supported by Utilitarianism, as it can occasionally have more good in its outcome than bad, and it is also sometimes supported by Subjectivism, as some people do believe it is the right thing to do.

Anyway, coming back to the video, Finn was driven to murder the Grounders by his love for Clarke, and it is clear that many of the people from space love him too, as reflected by their reactions to his passing. Daredevil claimed that every person has a spark of good in them, no matter how big, and having Finn killed for the sake of vengeance, not justice, snuffs out that spark forever, removes his chance to become better, and robs those that love him from a lifetime together. Killing him won’t bring those he killed back, and taking life is not “honorable.” It is just wrong.

Another example that conveys the death penalty quite well is from Assassin’s Creed. In this video, our main protagonist is confronted by a priest before his sentencing for murder. I find this quite ironic because they are the ones punishing him, not God.

It is clear that he’s scared, as he shakes the entire way through, even if the injection is “painless.” However, no matter the method of execution, Death Row is a vicious and appalling business. The death penalty treats the prisoners as animals, as capital punishment dehumanizes as well as kills.

Furthermore, just like an eye for an eye, a life for a life is a law of retaliation. If a person cuts out the eye of another, the government will not punish the criminal by taking their eye out as well because it is considered cruel and unusual punishment. Thus, what makes killing a criminal because they have taken another life any different?  If you answer this by saying, “Well, it’s a life, and a life is a whole other ball-game because it is our most valued possession and can’t be ‘paid’ for,” then by that logic, we shouldn’t kill the criminal for that precise reason. How can we justify a law of retaliation while we look down upon others? In my eyes, the death penalty is both immoral and evil because emotion fuels it.

To clarify, I’m not saying that a person is wrong to want vengeance upon the person who killed someone they love; that’s human. What I’m criticizing is acting upon that desire in the form of the death penalty.

I want to finish this section with a quote from lawyer Bryan Stevenson: “The death penalty is not about whether people deserve to die for the crimes they commit. The real question of capital punishment in this country is, ‘Do we deserve to kill?’”

All people are created equal, and for one to hold the power of life and death over another gives an inhuman advantage. We don’t deserve to kill because when we do, while our power may grow, our humanity declines.

Even Monsters Deserve to Live

When considering the morality of killing, even a “monster” deserves life, which can been illustrated from this example in Supernatural (S7E3).

Here, one of our main characters, Dean, is working a case and finally tracks down Amy, the creature who killed an innocent man. Even though she said she only killed because her son was starving (yes, 99 percent of monsters in this series eat humans), she promised she wouldn’t do it again. That said, Dean has an apparently clear opinion: All monsters are bad, and it is in their nature to kill, as he remarks, “You are what you are. You will kill again.”

In the real world, many think the same of criminals. Regardless of personal opinions, and regardless of who is being killed, there is always someone out there—dead or alive—who will mourn them, as the son of the “monster” Dean kills watches the entire scene. Therefore, more suffering is created as a consequence. In my eyes, killing will always be wrong and immoral. Death is tragic no matter where it roams.



Scroll to top

Follow Us on Facebook - Stay Engaged!

Send this to a friend