Taking the life of another human being can in some instances be the lesser of two evils.

Murder is essentially wrong. There are cases when I do believe it to be however, the better of two options. Take for instance, in the case of abortion. Let's assume that the mother is incredibly ill and that by having her child there is no way in which the mother could survive. Furthermore, there is only a slim chance that the baby will survive after birth, but a chance nonetheless. In this case, an abortion (the murder of an unborn child) would be the lesser of two evils, as by removing the foetus, it would enable the mother to live. So through the act of murder, it is securing a life, that otherwise would no exist. It would not be immoral to take such an action to guarantee one life, when there is a slim chance that neither life would exist. Another instance, could be in the case of euthanasia. Laws, values and morals, are all social constructs. Something that we have established as a society over time. The idea of Murder being wrong, is no exception and could also be deemed to be a social construct. Something that is influenced by religion (a social construct in itself) and the ten commandments. One of these commandments being; "Thou shall not kill." From which our moral that murder is wrong has derived. However there are nine other commandments and when asked which is the most important Jesus replied; "Thou shall love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it. Thou shall love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." [Matt22:37-40] This demonstrates the two commandments that override- "Thou shall not kill." If, murder (the breaking of this commandment) ensured that one of the two most important commandments was kept then surely it would make murder the lesser of two evils? If a beloved relative was terminally ill, and faced a long painful death and wished only to be peacefully put to sleep through euthanasia. Surely granting such a wish would be the kind thing to do? By ending this life it would be following the commandment of loving thy neighbour. This would be the kindest option and indeed, the lesser of two evils. Similarly an abortion could arguably also fulfill such a commandment. Take for example, the case of a young girl with a bright future ahead who is raped and consequently falls pregnant. By condemning this child to a life, against her will, in which she is forced to be a young mother caring for her rapists child would be the unkind, immoral thing to do. Refusing such a person an abortion would be an evil act, but allowing the abortion to take place, would be the lesser of two evils. Finally, in the case of the death penalty. Let's take the notoriously evil Hitler for example. He carried out mass genocide to Jews, Gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses and numerous other non complying people who Hitler saw to be inferior to himself in the Holocaust. The lives of millions were taken away and thousands more were ruined even if they survived. Had such a man been killed, by death penalty, or any other means prior to this, would that death have been immoral? That death of one evil man, who could have saved the lives of millions of innocent people who died in vain, merely for their beliefs and lifestyles. This again, I see to be the lesser of two evils. In these instances, Murder is, undeniably the lesser of two evils. Whilst murder, in it's purest, cold blooded form is wrong. There are circumstances when it is the lesser of two evils.