Do we have a moral obligation to value and respect human life?

Do we have a moral obligation to value and respect human life?

Introduction

Respect for life principle postulate that all living things are accorded moral status and on that basis should not be harmed or killed without good reason or rather without a valid justification.[1] The principle suggests that living things are moral agents who have moral responsibilities to protect other living things from harm. Moral agents, of course, have continued to harm and kill all the time all the living beings. When they harm or kill, do they feel guilty about it? What are their grounds for harming or killing? Thereby failing to respect and value something that is alive? These fundamental questions have left scholars groping for answers both in real-time and more specifically over time. The respect for life principle as advanced by warren seems to suggest that there is no wrongdoing to those who failed to protect life when there are morally good reasons that support the act. The principle, at the same time, fails to explain what constitutes sufficient grounds to harm or kill another living thing.[2] In essence, it is a basic moral obligation to protect human life because life is sacred. Just a mere fact to be human sends a signal that the value of human life is a basic moral obligation without anyone being a saint but rather a moral agent.

Whereas many people support value and respect for human life as a moral obligation, others claim that the value and respect for human life is a legal right. In other words, their perspective on human life is anchored on laws and rights, which is universally accepted. The proponents of this claim argue that humans have a right to life, and this is provided in the law.

The body of the paper will seek to provide sufficient grounds on the moral obligation to respect and value human life. The paper will have eleven paragraphs, ten in support of the thesis that believes in moral obligation and one counterclaim that premise it on the legal perspective. The conclusion part will highlight the need to protect and value human life without requiring any law whatsoever as well as binding the introduction part with the body.

Discussion

The most powerful and urgent cluster of demands that perhaps we recognize as a moral concern is a respect for the wellbeing, integrity, the life, and the flourishing of others. These are the urgent and powerful demands that are required of us as human beings that we have an obligation to respect the life of others and anything that supports their wellbeing. When we maim or kill others, we infringe on them.[3] When we strike fear into them, when we steal their property and rob them of their peace, we infringe on them. All human societies have acknowledged that everyone feels moral demands to respect and value human life. Universal moral demands require us not to refrain from helping others when they are in distress. It requires us to care for them and engage in any activity that promotes human life. Earlier societies condemn evil and any acts that put human life into danger. The innocent right of an innocent person for life is a basic moral right emphasized this view.[4] In other words, he implied that it is a human moral right to value and respect the innocent life of a person. Expanding upon his research study, he voices out that it is one’s right to live a dignified life, and therefore everyone should value human life. Notably, it is no exaggeration that a dignified innocent person is achieved through economic and social rights, which are provided by the state based on moral principles. The essence of moral goodness is humanity and human dignity. These essential supreme values support the actions of moral agents. Performing individual moral values is an expression of moral rights of human dignity, which calls for respect for human life and welfare.

The value and respect for human life is a moral intuition that is deeply powerful and universal. They are deeply rooted in instincts.[5] They are not like any other moral reactions, which arises with respect to both how a person was brought up and educated as well as a person’s experiences of education that rebukes the killing and maiming of others. In this sense, it is a natural and inborn feeling of guilt to inflict injury or death on others. Moral intuitions inclinations are those acts aimed at helping the injured or endangered humans. The aspect of bringing and culture has tried to explain the genesis of caring for others but lack the basis of human reaction to others in terms of helping and protecting them. Notably, Rousseau, an eighteen-century thinker, seems to concur with natural susceptibility to sympathize with others. Rousseau seems to suggest that it is natural for humans to sympathize with others, and that is the moral ground on which humans value, protect the lives of others, and help them when they are in distress. Our instincts and thoughts maintain that value only makes sense from a human perspective and that the belief that human is valuable justifies moral claims, which is to say that one has a moral obligation. On the basis that humans are valuable, it, therefore, follows that others should accord human beings value.[6] This can, therefore, be concluded using this assumption that we, as humans, are obliged to respect the value of humans.

Respect for life seems to go deep, and perhaps it is a universal tendency to protect the life of others. As we have seen, the instincts receive shape in culture with respect to human life. This shape cannot be separated from an explanation of what commands our respect. The account appears to explain the intuition; for example, it tells us God created human beings in his image and likeness. It also talks about human beings as immortal souls that all came from divine fire and are rational beings, and therefore their dignity transcends any other being. In a sense, human beings are depicted as God’s creatures made on his image, which provides a ground that there are near moral beings. This fact alone underscores the moral obligation to protect the other creatures of God as it the will of God to do so. Human spiritual life prohibits maiming and killing of others’ life but supports the protection of human life. With respect to human beings as rational beings, it implies that there is an element of dignity provided to human life. Rational human beings think that it is their right to value and respect human life. In a nutshell, God that shapes their culture to respect the life of others since they have souls destines them.

We are Universalists about respect for life and integrity.[7] This presumably translates that we seem to possess such moral reactions, or in light of the present human race predicament, we have decided that it is useful to harbor such reactions. Charles Taylor argues that it is in our interest in the shrinking world that we develop a moral reaction to the human race due to a lot of suffering, for example, poverty and that it will be wrong not to have such responses in the light of human suffering which requires our attention as humans. Besides, he argues that respect for life and integrity has nothing to do with race or physical traits, but human commanding our respect is a virtue in itself. Racists, on the other hand, claim that in human life, certain moral properties are genetically determined. In other terms, they seem to imply that some human beings based on their physical traits are less intelligent and hence not capable of high moral consciousness. However, their claims lack empirical evidence. The issue of race is undeniable, but in light of human history, the innate cultural differences claims are unsustainable. Life itself is a value, and being value, it imposes certain obligations to preserve that value.[8] Therefore, it is a moral obligation on every human being capable of preserving life to do so and not engage in anything that violates it in any form. Humans are morally obliged to uphold that value, and life itself is a value. Human moral obligations enjoin us as members of the groups and call us to look after the welfare of the group. In other terms, it alludes to the fact that, as humans, we are enjoined together by moral obligations that we have towards one another. Therefore as members of one group, we have a duty and a role in looking after the welfare of one another in terms of respect and value for life and protect one another from distress. At all times, we have a duty to uphold moral obligation. Moreover, human moral obligations entail the act of having respect and dignity to other human beings, upholding honesty to one another as well as unnecessarily harming others.

Moral exploration and arguments are shaped by our deepest moral responses within a world. What calls to mind the claims of injustice and suffering makes them worthy of the respect of human life. Moral thinking ignites moral responses to suffering and injustices to humans. We should treat our deepest moral instincts as a sense of respect for human life.[9] Further, the way you feel to human life acts as a moral ground to help humans from injustices of the world and suffering leave alone maiming or killing them. Human predicaments make sense to us and spell out what presupposes about ourselves to react to them in a bid to alleviate suffering. Extending our hands to them signifies a moral obligation to value and respect human life. Social response to human suffering through human rights.[10][11] Human rights systems are there to alleviate human suffering, and that from a moral perspective, human suffering, which in essence is a threat to human life makes a direct moral appeal. Here the moral appeal that is being referred to is the appeal for help and a call to increase human happiness, which translates to the act of valuing life. The human rights system prevents the most serious harms of physical and moral integrity, which guarantees the fulfillment of their wellbeing. Furthermore, human rights policy takes into consideration all human rights violations of pain and suffering in a bid to alleviate them as a moral imperative. Human rights norms speak of a feeling of empathy towards others and respect for their dignity and life.

The respect for human life is based on the theistic account whereby the status of God has invoked that regard human-like creatures of God.[12] The spiritual outlook of human life is the guiding principle, and as long as there is God, then killing is not permitted as it is against His commandments. The spiritual teachings talk about respect for human life and acts that act contrary to the law, and the commandment is a sin and punishable. Theistic principles encourage moral undertakings at all times, and therefore respect for human life is no different. It encourages actions that aim at helping humans get out of difficult situations and activities that affect their welfare. Theistic account encourages the love and care of one another. If human beings indeed love one another, they will not do anything to harm one another, such as doing hospitable things to ensure the wellbeing of others. Acts of killing are condemned and are regarded as acts of immorality in the current society. The society promotes actions that are in connection with theistic teachings.

Human being commanding our respect in modern civilization is that human is universal.[13] In other words, there is some such sense in every society. Taylor seems to concur with this idea as he puts it that every society recognizes human beings as worthy of respect. It points to the fact that societies somehow developed norms and incorporated in their culture that spells out respect for human life. In essence, it is part of the societal way of life and beliefs, which is the order of the day. They probably had the natural law to govern society. Taylor postulated that in the seventeenth century, the revolution of natural law consisted partly of using the language of rights, which expressed universal moral norms. The natural law was against taking of innocent life.[14] Since the law prohibits taking an innocent life, the citizens had to obey that law as part of societal norms and not necessarily as a requirement. It is premised on the fact that it provides people with the benefits of immunity of life such that people are required to respect life so that their lives are also respected in return. Societal moral norms are the determinant of the wellbeing of each society, and everybody followed it as a way of life.

There is a strange modern sense of what value and respect for human life entail. It places high priority, self-control, and freedom on avoiding suffering and sees family life and productive activity as central to our wellbeing. It defines morality as pure respect for others. Respect for others implies that we respect their lives and protect them. In other words, this category of respecting others encompasses our moral obligation to other people.[15] The moral thoughts are the central concern of value and respect. Taylor seems to suggest that the kind of life worth living is based on the moral thoughts to other people. What constitutes a meaningful and rich life is to be concerned about others, and it is through this that one achieves a full life. The notion of living a full life overlaps with the sense of respecting others, and these are important ideas in understanding a moral world alongside affirming ordinary life.

The value and respect for human life are also anchored on dignity. In this sense, the features which we think of ourselves should revolve around commanding the respect of those around us. In other terms, it implies thinking well of someone and looking upon them to mean they have our respect. The way we carry ourselves around speaks volumes of our dignity, which we will extend it in form connection to others. Dignified life is near moral thinking, and others will enjoy our respect. Their human life will be protected by our dignity. Taylor explains that our dignity can consist of our power, sense of dominating public space, or our self-sufficiency. Therefore this basis of dignity will make us respect the life of others and help them out of distress and suffering. In this case, for instance, the Rwandan genocide humanitarian crisis intervention is seen as a moral obligation to value and respect human life.[16] The happenings of the genocide in Rwanda evokes moral culpability. In other words, it pokes holes in response to avert the massacre that moral responses took time to respond in a bid to protect the lives of the two warring communities. Humanitarian interventions during the crises indicated that moral concern override the legal norm. The first step, which comes to mind during such humanitarian situations, is the act of saving the lives of people by stopping more killings and later own the masterminds behind the animosity that are brought to justice. Gross moral wrongs strike the minds of human beings first and quickly dawn to them that they have a moral obligation to protect human life. It is essential to recognize that all human beings are endowed with conscience and reason with equal dignity and right and should act towards one another in the goodwill spirit that is to protect one another’s value and life.

Human beings are much more sensitive to the suffering of others. They do not want others to suffer, even if those who are suffering have horrible crimes punishable by execution. Taylor captures a situation of a description of account of a man who had attempted regicide in France in the mid-eighteenth century of torture and execution.[17] He argues that even the clear legal execution where the death penalty is in force are carried out deep within prison walls and not carried out in public. At earlier times, such events were witnessed even by small children. However, we are much sensitive to the kind of suffering these humans are subjected to. We would rather not even want to hear of execution because deep in our hearts, we feel for them. There is no need for a point in ritually undoing of a terrible crime in equal terrible punishment in form execution. We feel some sense of moral order, which emphasizes on relieving suffering. People have protested against the senseless and needless suffering inflicted on others in the name of punishment orders.

On the counterclaim, the opponents have argued that it is a legal obligation to value and protect human life. Higher civilizations of the modern west are that their formulation of the principle of respect came in terms of rights, which has become key to our legal systems.[18] Her value and respect for human lives have spread around the world. In the western legal tradition, that notion of a right otherwise known as the subjective right has been developed as legal privilege seen as quasi possession of attributed agent. It began as natural rights, but it has now evolved into different forms, such as life and liberty, which everyone has. The natural right to life law prohibited the taking of innocent life. Therefore, it is a legal obligation to follow that law, which calls for the need to value and respect human life. Fundamentally human beings were under the law and had to comply with it. It is needless to point out that talking of human rights is basically linking the respect for human life and integrity with the idea of autonomy. It supposes that people cooperate in establishing and making sure respect is accorded to them. Respecting personality entails respecting the moral autonomy of a person. Mellion brought forward the concept of international law and intervention rights.[19] He postulated that morality alone could not act to protect human rights abuses, but the law is required to deal with protecting the victims of massive human rights abuses. The international community has universally established human rights that are enforceable obligation and binding. For instance, in times of humanitarian emergencies, the international community intervenes to protect human rights through judicial action to ensure that justice prevails. Offenders infringing on the fundamental rights of people are brought to the justice system to protect the life of the people.

Conclusion

It is clear and obvious that we have a moral obligation to value and respect human life without necessarily requiring any law to guide us. Humans are valuable in an objective sense, and without humans, nothing is valuable; hence, value makes sense with humans. This is a sufficient ground to support our obligation to respect the value of humans. When we value others, we are sensitive to their suffering, and we take up actions to alleviate them from their suffering. During a humanitarian crisis, it is our moral obligation to step in to protect human life because we value them. Before there is any legal course that needs to take, place humanitarian responses have already stepped in to salvage the situation that threatens human life.

Most importantly is that our moral instincts are so strong that we feel for other human beings. When they face a difficult situation, or their rights are infringed, our instincts tell us we need to take action to help them out of such unpleasant situations. Theistic account points out our moral actions towards other human beings. Its teachings stress the need to respect and value the life of other humans. It not only condemns killing and murder but also encourages charitable activities aimed at helping others out of suffering. In a nutshell, moral obligation to value and respect human life surpasses the legal obligation based on the arguments we have brought forward, which indeed supports the claim.

Bibliography

Andorno, Roberto, and Cristiana Baffone. “Human rights and the moral obligation to alleviate suffering.” Suffering and bioethics (2014): 185-200.

Gluckman, Vasil. “Humanity and Moral Rights.” In The Paideia Archive: Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy, vol. 7, pp. 15-20. 1998.

Mellion, Adam. “The Moral and Legal Aspects of Protecting Human Rights: Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Intervention.” (2007).

Motilal, Shashi. 2011. “Human Rights, Humanmoral Obligations And Moral Cosmopolitanism.” Geisteswissenschaften.Fu-Berlin.De. https://www.geisteswissenschaften.fu-berlin.de/v/dchan/termine/shashi-motilal_human-rights1.pdf.

Taylor, Charles. Sources of the self: The making of the modern identity. Harvard University Press, 1989.

“What Is Thesourceof Human Value?”. 2014. Warwick.Ac.Uk. https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_fac/iatl/funding/fundedprojects/studentcollaboration/gildea_ghalifa/gildea_w__ghalifa_c_-_project_report.pdf.

Winston, Morton. 2008. “Respect For Life Principle.” Ethicsofglobalresponsibility.Blogspot.Com. http://ethicsofglobalresponsibility.blogspot.com/2008/02/respect-for-life-principle.html.

[1] Winston, Morton. 2008. “Respect For Life Principle.” Ethicsofglobalresponsibility.Blogspot.Com. http://ethicsofglobalresponsibility.blogspot.com/2008/02/respect-for-life-principle.html.

[2] Winston, Morton. 2008. “Respect For Life Principle.” Ethicsofglobalresponsibility.Blogspot.Com. http://ethicsofglobalresponsibility.blogspot.com/2008/02/respect-for-life-principle.html.

[3] Taylor, Charles. Sources of the self: The making of the modern identity. Harvard University Press, 1989.

[4] Gluckman, Vasil. “Humanity and Moral Rights.” In The Paideia Archive: Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy, vol. 7, pp. 15-20. 1998.

[5] Taylor, Charles. Sources of the self: The making of the modern identity. Harvard University Press, 1989.

[6] “What Is Thesourceof Human Value?”. 2014. Warwick.Ac.Uk. https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_fac/iatl/funding/fundedprojects/studentcollaboration/gildea_ghalifa/gildea_w__ghalifa_c_-_project_report.pdf.

[7] Taylor, Charles. Sources of the self: The making of the modern identity. Harvard University Press, 1989.

[8] Motilal, Shashi. 2011. “Human Rights, Humanmoral Obligations And Moral Cosmopolitanism.” Geisteswissenschaften.Fu-Berlin.De. https://www.geisteswissenschaften.fu-berlin.de/v/dchan/termine/shashi-motilal_human-rights1.pdf.

[9] Taylor, Charles. Sources of the self: The making of the modern identity. Harvard University Press, 1989.

[10] Ibid, 1989.

[11] Andorno, Roberto, and Cristiana Baffone. “Human rights and the moral obligation to alleviate suffering.” Suffering and bioethics (2014): 185-200.

[12] Taylor, Charles. Sources of the self: The making of the modern identity. Harvard University Press, 1989.

[13] Ibid, 1989.

[14] Ibid, 1989.

[15] Taylor, Charles. Sources of the self: The making of the modern identity. Harvard University Press, 1989.

[16] Mellion, Adam. “The Moral and Legal Aspects of Protecting Human Rights: Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Intervention.” (2007).

[17] Taylor, Charles. Sources of the self: The making of the modern identity. Harvard University Press, 1989.

[18] Taylor, Charles. Sources of the self: The making of the modern identity. Harvard University Press, 1989.

[19] Mellion, Adam. “The Moral and Legal Aspects of Protecting Human Rights: Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Intervention.” (2007).