Should humans always protect life and never destroy it?

Answer 1

Life is a term that can refer to human life or to other animal and even plant life.

Of course, we must eat and will always need to kill in order to meet that need. Even vegetarians rely on eating vegetable life, and usually rely on killing pests and parasites in order to protect crops. On the other hand, we should always act to protect endangered species and preserve biodiversity on earth.

Protecting human life is an ideal that is seldom honoured entirely. Nations do go to war, and war kills. Even otherwise civilised nations may have the death penalty for serious crimes, when the ideal of protecting life would mandate no more than life imprisonment for even the most serious crimes. And some even extend the meaning of the term 'life' to include unborn babies.

It is usually easier not to destroy life than it is to protect it. One can refuse to perform military duty, and perhaps even refuse to perform any work that even indirectly assists the military. In another example, not many have to carry out the death penalty on condemned criminals, whereas protecting the life of condemned criminals would require civil action or protests in order to have sentences commuted and the law changed. Not many would do this to protect the lives of those we despise. For those who believe that the term 'life' includes unborn babies, the opposite is probably true. It can be easier to engage in protests against abortion than to refuse an abortion in the unlikely event that one finds oneself in the difficult position of having to make this choice. Fortunately, as a man, I will never have to undergo, or refuse, an abortion but I can choose whether to protest at the actions of others.