more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
If the only objection to killing (or not conceiving) is the impersonal one of not reducing the amount of worthwhile life, there seems nothing wrong with eliminating one worthwhile life if another is substituted.
Gist of Idea
What is wrong with killing someone, if another equally worthwhile life is substituted?
Source
Jonathan Glover (Causing Death and Saving Lives [1977], §11.1)
Book Ref
Glover,Jonathan: 'Causing Death and Saving Lives' [Penguin 1982], p.139
A Reaction
This invites us to value a life in itself, rather than for what it makes possible (e.g. 'worthwhile' activity). It doesn't follow that the life is 'sacred' - only that it has some intrinsic value. And why not?
7907 | Human killing is worse if the victim is virtuous [Buddhaghosa] |
6832 | Killing a human, except as just punishment, is like killing all mankind [Mohammed] |
6825 | Do not kill except for a just cause [Mohammed] |
4649 | If someone's life is 'worth living', that gives one direct reason not to kill him [Glover] |
4651 | Utilitarians object to killing directly (pain, and lost happiness), and to side-effects (loss to others, and precedents) [Glover] |
4671 | What is wrong with killing someone, if another equally worthwhile life is substituted? [Glover] |
4676 | The 'no trade-off' position: killing is only justified if it prevents other deaths [Glover] |
4685 | Societies spend a lot to save known persons, but very little to reduce fatal accidents [Glover] |
7338 | Man's life is sacred, because it is made in God's image [Johnson,P] |