Killing a person is the most heinous crime a man can commit against

another, because it is irreversible and effectively ends a man's existence as we

know him. There are a variety of viewpoints on this subject. Some people believe
that killing people is incompatible with their human status. Some argue that it is
acceptable in any situation when it may be useful.
We all know, after watching the movie “The First purge”, it is about
disturbing violence, language, sexuality, drug use. The First Purge goes all-in on
politics. The film compresses the last few years of real-world American horror into
one night on Staten Island, a place where armed white supremacists and a
government that sees them as allies in an ongoing culture war seem less of a threat
than random violence. A few scattered murders committed by unstable or spiteful
people give way to waves of well-organized, government-backed death squads
dressed in Klan robes and Nazi-evoking trench coats over the course of the film. A
church becomes a haven for a few people who refuse to take part in the Purge, but
the refugees are annihilated in an armed attack. It is a place where even a worship
place is no longer protected from arms violence. (A prolog that fills in certain
details reveals in a narrating detail that with the help of the NRA the party has
come to power.) And in such exceptional circumstances, fighting is the only
choice. In one scene, Dmitri strangles an assailant who is wearing a blackface-
inspired mask. McMurray allows death to take place in a long, unequivocal shot
that goes well beyond the comfort. The film has crossed a line between
entertainment and political comment, but the political message is so strongly
foretold in the recent installment, DeMonaco and others seem to force the public to
consider the consequences of inhuman governance and a political system openly
inclined toward the poor.
For the above mentioned situations we cited in the movie, we can
confidently say that the government loss it’s ethical and moral principles by
favoring the supremacists and implementing such brutal decision of killing people
without sanctions just to unburden the economy of society’s noncontributing
members. These people (villains) are highly educated, well-mannered, upper-crust
young adults who argue that their socioeconomic status entitles them to purge and
kill off the homeless. Indeed they are well educated but didn’t know how to
distinguish right from wrong, from ethical to non ethical and immoral to moral
principles. Killing a person is immoral not because of the effect the death has on
the murderer or others around the victim, but because of the effect it has on the
victim. It is unjustifiable to deprive a person of future experiences that he was
destined to have. Denying a person the opportunity to pursue his or her dreams and
aspirations, as well as plans for future activities and initiatives, is immoral. How
are we expected to stop evil if we let the perpetrator go free and continue to
perpetrate it? Isn't it true that if someone wants to kill you, he has already
descended from the "status of human"? Once a person commits violence for any
reason, he, in my judgment, rejects the security that human moral rules provide.
Nothing should prevent anyone else from retaliating in order to protect themselves,
their friends and relatives, their property, or any other person or property.
However, we must remember that killing others is the highest sort of crime that
humans can commit. Be a human with moral and ethical principles.