The killing of newborn babies is a tragedy and morally wrong, universally. Life is precious and is a gift. Despite many of the reasons and arguments raised for infanticide, it remains morally wrong. Infanticide is usually attached to extreme poverty, overpopulation, and/or discrimination of a certain gender. The cited issues should be solved separately. From all perspectives, the act should be condemned. Individuals, the society, governments, and other stakeholders should join hands to eradicate it. In addition, the Human Right World Organizations are always concerned with protection of human life in all stages of life. The devastating reason behind the killing of newborn babies is that they are innocent. They do not know whether they are born out of wedlock, extreme poverty, or in an overpopulated environment.
Ethical relativism can be defined as a theory that describes morality to be comparative with the norms of one’s culture. This means that the society in which a person lives is the sole determinant of whether some acts are wrong or right. Therefore, some acts can be morally wrong in one culture and morally right in another or, in other words, there is no universal application of moral standards (Hoffer & Hull, 1981). Moral objectivity states that morality exists independently from opinions. For instance, torturing of an innocent person is morally wrong independent of any culture (Brown, 1991). Cultural relativism, on the other hand, states that there is no superior or inferior culture than the other. What is considered wrong by one culture should be morally wrong. Deontological ethics in philosophy is a theory that put a special emphasis on the relationship between a duty and morality of human actions (Brown, 1991). Teleological ethics state that the primary objective of morality can be totally valued by the outcome of the action. This means that the best action is that which leads to the best outcome.
Kant through his theory of the categorical imperative argues that for an act to be morally right, one must act according to duty. He further explains that the consequences of the action done by a person cannot be used to prove that the actions are right, but the reason behind them (Brown, 1991). This, therefore, means that the situation should not be morally worsen when an action is done, but should be aimed at the best will of the people. Infanticide cannot occur universally within poverty and overpopulation. This depends on the decision that the society makes, which is mostly correlated with poverty or overpopulation. No matter how the situation may be, everybody has a right to live, and this right applies to all at equal rates.
High population can be caused by uncontrolled birth of young ones. The society in collaboration with the government of the day may be interested in reducing the number of newborn. High population can be linked to poverty in a great way. However, issues such as poverty or overpopulation can be solved using other means. The level of literacy can be improved and training people on awareness and better methods of poverty eradication (Hoffer & Hull, 1981). It is argued that women are the most affected by infanticide because they are associated with poverty and overpopulation, but when they are not discriminated or eradicated, they can be useful in providing human capital.
According to teleological theory, the action that is morally right or correct leads to the best results. We can, therefore, say that infanticide can end up reducing the level of poverty because of the reduction in number of people (Hoffer & Hull, 1981). However, the number of young ones that are killed can never be used as sufficient reason to rely on as we eradicate poverty. This is because it does not lead to the best possible outcome for the action taken. Other methods exist that people need to know concerning reducing overpopulation (Brown, 1999). Sustained and more reliable methods can be used. For instance, natural methods advocated by churches and other organization are not only affordable, but also reliable when well executed. The best outcome in this case cannot be given out through infanticide, but rather the killed children can be brought up to solve the challenges that face the society.
The government may advocate for this practice to reduce population, but the process may end up weakening the society. It may also make them lose their members for the greater good as advocated by moral objectivists (Brown, 1991). Life is precious and must be respected and assured as a right to all regardless of which objective the process is aimed.
Cultural relativism explains that cultural differences exist between different groups of people. Some proceed to argue that cultures are so different that they exist far from each other and that it is not possible to bring them together. Similarly, there are fundamental agreements between various cultures. Although opinions from different cultures may differ, that does not mean that there is no objective truth of the matter. In our situation, though cultural differences may prevail and get to be respected, that does not mean that it is the absolute truth. The society strong beliefs cannot justify its course of action. Illegitimacy cannot be used as a reason for infanticide (Brown, 1991). The issue of illegitimate needs a solution of its own kind. Most of illegitimate cases are because of moral decay, poverty and other reasons; therefore, cannot be solved by infanticide. Infanticide is morally wrong, should be condemned, and prevented in all ways possible.
Moral objectivism is another theory that strongly opposes infanticide. The acts whether right or wrong must not rely on people’s beliefs, but should pursue their own objective identity. Although people may hold different facts, beliefs, and cultures, deciding whether some deserve to live and some not should not be based on them, but rather logical and factual supported arguments (Hoffer & Hull, 1981). Holding firm beliefs is a step toward failure, because society rejects changes and other facts that are against its own. The society uses it as a weapon of eliminating children born of illegitimate relations. In this perspective, it is far from objective truth, because it is based on people’s beliefs (Hoffer & Hull, 1981). This belief does not justify infanticide, but question its credibility. The opinions and the way of dealing with this situation should be gathered all over the world, and the right direction agreed upon.
Clearly, this issue is a global problem and solution should be gathered universally. There should also be no skewed beliefs and action taken by some group of people to carry out infanticide in the name of faith, beliefs, and culture. Women should not be discriminated from the rest of the society, but rather should be supported, educated, and brought up to maturity to fulfill their dreams. Poverty should be eradicated in appropriate ways other than infanticide. Everybody has a chance and the right to live irrespective of race, place of birth, levels of poverty, and other forms of society discriminating issues.