Killing me softly

Is it ever morally right to kill someone? Perhaps in self-defence, when there is an unwanted unborn child, in terms of euthanasia or is it simply NEVER right? Following on from a student based discussion where we asked our fellow peers if they think it is right or wrong to kill someone, I would like to get a wider opinion by asking you, our blogging audience, on your views. I would like to ask you whether you think it is right or wrong to kill someone based on what I have to say by commenting below the blog.

Should one have the right to decide on life and death? There are a number of factors that people may think about when killing or attempting to kill somebody, are they protecting themselves, will this be for the greater good for everyone else, are they putting someone out of misery? But then again they may not think, they may not think about the people whom they are hurting by this action, what good could possibly come out of it, are they even in their right state of mind? All these factors must come into consideration when looking into if it is ever right to kill someone.

When an individual is put under pressure to protect themselves or others, could this be under the right circumstance when killing someone is right? When in a situation such as a violent attack, where the only chance of survival is to kill the attacker, could killing be deemed as right? In an alarming situation it would be ones initiative to put them self before anyone else and save them self from death, but when all is said and done, the initial victim whom has killed could be deemed as a murderer and face prosecution, so does this seem ethically right?

What about the idea of the death penalty? The death penalty is the execution of one’s life as a punishment for a crime they have committed. This would prevent criminals reoffending and give justice for the crime they committed, however will taking the criminals life really make up for action committed, what if they got the wrong person, should the criminal have the right to redeem themselves? Should the death penalty be introduced in the UK as a form of justice for criminals, encouraging others not to make the same crimes? Is it right to kill a killer? Do two wrongs make a right in this sense, or should criminals be able to live a life in confinement?

Euthanasia, another form of killing someone, has been a widely discussed subject for years; it is the ending of one’s life that is in incredible amounts of pain that cannot bear to suffer any longer. Can euthanasia be justified; if an individual is never going to get better should they be allowed to end their life? Could it help or hinder those close to them to move on and prevent them seeing that person in pain? An issue that arises in euthanasia is if the person is in the right state of mind to make the important decision of whether or not to end their life, but if not could they take actions to end their own life anyway? Letting someone die in not as much pain could be better for them and the people around them, but should they be allowed to make the decision to be killed? Should euthanasia be allowed to help people, or is it simply not right as a way of killing someone?

There are so many debates which stem the rightness or wrongness of killing someone, but who makes the decisions on what is right or wrong? If everyone has different opinions, then to each self we are all morally right as we all have our own set of moral values, but how far is too far when it comes to the decision making of whether its right or wrong to kill someone?

From the points I have made, and from others that you may know of, do you think it is ever right to kill somebody? 

Please leave your comments in response to this ethical issue.

C

When in Rome

Fellow bloggers, I'd like to ask you how far is too far when the practice of religion is concerned? Britain is an individualist country which allows people to have freedom of religion, this means that individuals are able to practice, teach, worship, change religion or not follow any religion freely. 

It has been an ongoing political debate in parliament whether the burka, which is a full body cloak worn by some Muslim women, should be banned because of the fact it covers the woman’s whole face except the eyes.

Conservative MP Philip Hollobone proposes a bill that states “a person wearing a garment or other object intended by the wearer as its primary purpose to obscure the face in a public place shall be guilty of an offence". It adds that "a person providing a public service in person to a member of the public or receiving a public service in person from a public official shall remove any garment or other object intended by the wearer as its primary purpose to obscure the face unless such garment or other object is reasonably required for reasons of health or safety". It allows for exceptions on the basis of health and safety or "for the purposes of art, leisure or entertainment".

Although this may seem like a valid request some people argue that British citizens should be allowed to wear what they want as long as they are not harming anyone else. MP Vince Cable argues "People must have the right to choose how they want to dress and express their religion," Nick Clegg agrees commenting: "I think it is very un-British to start telling people what pieces of clothing they should wear." 

Are these MPs fighting for human rights or is it just fear of being perceived as culturally insensitive? People who are in support for the burka being banned are often labelled as racist towards ethnic minorities such as Muslims, however, when it is reserved and Muslims are attacking British culture they are not regarded as racists. Is it fair that in a British society we are not entitled to our own opinion towards other cultures without being labelled as racist?

This clip shows an example of extremist Muslim protesters opinion of British citizens. This does not represent all Muslims but is an example of racism towards British women.  

It is argued that the burka can make people feel uncomfortable as it is part of human understanding to read people from their facial expressions. When working with the public it is out of courtesy to show your face; having a hidden face, like Muslims, is another way that makes people feel uneasy towards the religion.

It has been recently reported that Mohammed Ahmed Mohammed, a terror suspect who was facing 20 different terrorism prevention orders, escaped surveillance by dressing in disguise in a burka while removing his electronic tag to free him-self from criminal convictions. Actions like this can make people un-safe as you can never be sure who is underneath the burka. If individuals began wearing other forms of facial clothing, for example balaclavas which also cover the face the government would restrict this. So this leaves me to ask you, do you think the burka should be banned in the UK? Please vote. 

Should the burka be banned?

N

Who are you wearing?

An underage worker, someone severely injured or someone who has to work 19-hour days? 

Questions like this have come to light and have been asked more frequently than ever before since the Rana Plaza factory terror in Bangladesh in April which killed 1,113 workers. By looking at the horrifying images of the factory’s collapse, the world was left in utter shock. Moreover, it makes us question how can we allow ourselves to wear the clothes that are made in these very factories? High street brands for years have used this unethical approach to making our jeans that we slide on every day and our very own vest tops that we pop on. Yet, what are we doing about it?

This is not the first time consumers have been aware of something like this. However, since the deaths in Bangladesh, consumer’s eyes have been opened further. Previous to this incident November 2012 saw the awful fire which killed 112 at the Tazreen garment factory in Dhaka. But, Rana Plaza being the biggest so far and not even a year after the previous event, this has reminded us a little sooner than retailers expected or hoped for. So the question appears, in all the newspapers, in all of the high street brands board meetings, what is being done? It has been argued that we, as the consumer, should not be forced into the guilt and worry of buying clothes that are made in these awful conditions. Is it realistic that we would thoroughly research into which retailers are ethical, finding out whether their suppliers are workers who are being made to work in dangerous conditions? This for every consumer would be unrealistic. In an ideal world we should feel safe and guilt-free when going into a high street retailer. Hopefully soon we will.

Well, with the help of the shock tactics that has been displayed throughout the media to the public, something is finally being done. As of May 2013 the Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh was signed by a group of retailers and since has been signed by more. The Accord is a five-year agreement between retailers, labour organisations and non-governmental organisations to improve and maintain safety standards in the Bangladesh textile industry. In October this year, it was announced that 1,600 Bangladeshi factories were covered by the accord, this represents about a third of the Bangladeshi textile industry. This is a great start to move forward and make fast fashion ethical, but again, it’s something that needs to be pushed and maintained. This will hopefully protect all workers if maintained correctly. It shouldn’t take a mass catastrophe to remind us of whom we are actually wearing. If you care and you can, check your retailers. If you can’t, then when you see the next biggest headline on unethical fashion – read it. It may make you think; and hopefully this might make you care a bit more when buying your next piece of clothing.

WearWithCare

J