death penalty and euthanasia

A question that concerns the majority of humans for decades is whether there is a right in someone else’s life. There have been through the ages, many arguments and counter arguments about issues like death penalty and euthanasia and surely this matter differs each time depending on the point of view. You could claim your opinion for or against when being outside an unpleasant situation but when it comes to a closer person or even yourself, things might change. That is why we have to look deeper and point out the moral dimensions around human life.
A human’s life and ethics are commonly two attached words and every time we want to analyze life, ethical issues arise. Same here, different approaches should be explained through normative ethics and the theories that embrace each side.
Normative ethics is split in two categories which are the teleological and the deontological theories.

The teleological theory (from the Greek word, “telos”) derives duty or moral obligation from what is good or desirable as an end to be achieved. Teleological theory locates moral goodness in the consequences of our behavior and not the behavior itself. According to this theory, all human actions are teleological because all of them aim to a certain end. We could say that moral behavior is goal driven. For example suppose that I attempt to steal bread from a grocery store in order to feed my children who are starving. Would it be right or wrong? Many would try to analyze my motive in order to explain it but from a teleological perspective, motives really have nothing to do with acting right or wrong. What really matters is that my children would not starve.

The deontological theory disagrees with the idea that consequences are important. Whether an act is right does not depend on the consequences. There are certain acts that are right or wrong no matter what the consequences are, meaning that there are certain acts which are wrong even if they have a good outcome. Some people