Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Some decades later, philosopher and bioethicist Peter Singer (1994, 1999), and his colleague Helga Kuhse (1987) led the opposition against so-called “sanctity-of-life ethics” and predicted the rise of the new quality-of-life ethic with regard to questions of abortion and end-of-life decision-making.
In religion and ethics, the sanctity of life, sometimes described as the inviolability of life, [1] [2] is a principle of implied protection regarding aspects of sentient life that are said to be holy, sacred, or otherwise of such value that they are not to be violated.
Finding the ethical balance between the sanctity of life and the right to defend is one of the most challenging endeavors. It requires a nuanced understanding of the value of life, the circumstances of threat, and the moral implications of action and inaction.
The doctrine of the sanctity of life has traditionally been characterised as a Judeo-Christian doctrine that has it that bodily human life is an intrinsic good and that it is always impermissible to kill an innocent human. Abortion and euthanasia are often assumed to violate the doctrine.
The sanctity of human life is not the only ethical norm utilized by its advocates. Nonetheless, they claim, it is a foundational assumption for bioethical issues surrounding life, death, and human treatment.
Many religious traditions, including Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, uphold the sanctity of life as a fundamental principle guiding moral decision-making. Advocates for the sanctity of life often oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide, arguing that life should be preserved regardless of suffering.
The doctrine of the sanctity of life has traditionally been characterised as a Judeo‐ Christian doctrine that has it that bodily human life is an intrinsic good and that it is always impermissible to kill an innocent human.