To save a man's life against his will is the same as killing him.

The saying frames autonomy as central to the value of life: if a person does not consent to being “saved,” the act can become a form of violence, overriding their agency and forcing an existence they reject. Read this way, it anticipates later ethical debates about paternalism, coercive “beneficence,” and the limits of intervention—especially in contexts like suicide prevention, medical treatment, or political “rescue” carried out for someone’s supposed good. Its stark equivalence (“saving” equals “killing”) is rhetorical, meant to shock the reader into recognizing that intentions do not erase the moral weight of violating a person’s will.