2 questions on killing for the common good

[fakename]

It would appear not since the common good is the province of the ruler. But the ruler is simply he who knows what the common good is. So in reality if the private citizen knows better than the ruler what the common good is, then it seems the private citizen is the real ruler (though someone else may be legally ruler) and the legal ruler is actually the private citizen. As such, the private citizen should be allowed to intentionally kill for the common good?

Also if we live in a democracy or if there is a direct democracy then the private citizens are stewards of the common good and so for that reason, should be allowed to intentionally kill.

#2 can a gov. official intend to kill someone for the good of the whole and yet not violate the restrictions of the principle of double effect? Or is the fact that he intends the death in as much as it limits evil that keeps the principle from being violated?

Thanks

 

[ANNE_2]

No. You can never take the law into your own hands to kill someone.

Self defense is appropriate and necessary even if a lethal blow is required.

Revenge is never permitted.
Capital punishment (death penalty) is only permitted by authority if it is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

See “Legitimate Defense” #2263 - 2267 in your CCC.

 

[TimothyH]

Christ taught us to respect legitimate authority.

Knowing more about what is in the best interest of the common good does not grant me legitimate authority. And if I kill based on the fact that I think I know better what is in the interest of the common good or based on the fact that I actually do know what is in the best interest of the common good in the absence of legitimate authority it only makes me a murderer.

Read 1 Samuel, expecially chapter 16 through the end, where David is annointed King but twice spares the life of King Saul. Saul is a poor steward of the common good yet David respects the authority of Saul who was annointed first.

Its easy to think in the abstract and use phrases like “kill in the interest of the common good” but the last thing I want to do is stand before Jesus Christ and have to explain why I took a human life, even in self defense, when I myself deserve death and eternity in Hell for my sins.

-Tim-

 

[fakename]

Christ taught us to respect legitimate authority.

Knowing more about what is in the best interest of the common good does not grant me legitimate authority. And if I kill based on the fact that I think I know better what is in the interest of the common good or based on the fact that I actually do know what is in the best interest of the common good in the absence of legitimate authority it only makes me a murderer.

Read 1 Samuel, expecially chapter 16 through the end, where David is annointed King but twice spares the life of King Saul. Saul is a poor steward of the common good yet David respects the authority of Saul who was annointed first.

Its easy to think in the abstract and use phrases like “kill in the interest of the common good” but the last thing I want to do is stand before Jesus Christ and have to explain why I took a human life, even in self defense, when I myself deserve death and eternity in Hell for my sins.

-Tim-

1. why should people respect authority? All true authority is from God so someone who isn’t Godly can’t have authority -I’m pretty sure that’ s a syllogism w/2 true premises.
2. unless somehow living in the white house or going to congress is inherently orders one more to the common good -in which case what is the point of allowing anyone else but the immediate members of gov. to exercise political power?
3. OR unless authority really just means strength or is justified simply because strength comes from God? But in that case, how can one square this with the moral admissability w/the overthrow of a gov.? Wouldn’t that be contradicting? Or would it be okay since the rebels could have only won if they had more strength and so more authority?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

1. All true authority is from God so someone who isn’t Godly can’t have authority

That is dead wrong. God can use anyone He wants to - even the very evil ones - for His purposes. Look at how He turned the authority of Pontius Pilate into the means to bring about our salvation.

unless somehow living in the white house or going to congress is inherently orders one more to the common good -in which case what is the point of allowing anyone else but the immediate members of gov. to exercise political power?

Try again. That sentence is totally unintelligible.

1. OR unless authority really just means strength or is justified simply because strength comes from God? But in that case, how can one square this with the moral admissability w/the overthrow of a gov.? Wouldn’t that be contradicting? Or would it be okay since the rebels could have only won if they had more strength and so more authority?

A lot has been written about the conditions that justify participating in a revolution. Basically it is only permitted when the rulers in power are clearly and certainly not serving the public good, but are in fact enemies of the public good. The bar is set very high. You can’t just say “I think people would be better off with a different government.”. Another requirement is that the fight for revolution must be expected to do less harm than the current rulers are doing. You can’t launch a bloody revolution in order to cure some minor inconvenience. Also you must have a reasonable expectation of success. It is not moral to launch a revolution that is likely to be hopeless, even if all the other conditions are met.

 

[StrawberryJam]

It would appear not since the common good is the province of the ruler. But the ruler is simply he who knows what the common good is. So in reality if the private citizen knows better than the ruler what the common good is, then it seems the private citizen is the real ruler (though someone else may be legally ruler) and the legal ruler is actually the private citizen. As such, the private citizen should be allowed to intentionally kill for the common good?

Also if we live in a democracy or if there is a direct democracy then the private citizens are stewards of the common good and so for that reason, should be allowed to intentionally kill.

#2 can a gov. official intend to kill someone for the good of the whole and yet not violate the restrictions of the principle of double effect? Or is the fact that he intends the death in as much as it limits evil that keeps the principle from being violated?

Thanks

I’m afraid I can’t understand the first question, because it is not being presented clearly.
The second question has me perplexed also. Which country are you talking about?
The Vatican State? Maybe you meant to ask, should a government official…
Not can a government official…

 

[fakename]

That is dead wrong. God can use anyone He wants to - even the very evil ones - for His purposes. Look at how He turned the authority of Pontius Pilate into the means to bring about our salvation.

Try again. That sentence is totally unintelligible.

A lot has been written about the conditions that justify participating in a revolution. Basically it is only permitted when the rulers in power are clearly and certainly not serving the public good, but are in fact enemies of the public good. The bar is set very high. You can’t just say “I think people would be better off with a different government.”. Another requirement is that the fight for revolution must be expected to do less harm than the current rulers are doing. You can’t launch a bloody revolution in order to cure some minor inconvenience. Also you must have a reasonable expectation of success. It is not moral to launch a revolution that is likely to be hopeless, even if all the other conditions are met.

On revolutions: what constitutes not serving the public good and yet not being an enemy of the common good -it seems necessary that a gov. should serve the public good since it is useful only on that account. What should be done in this case too -I suppose reform?

Secondly, I’m not sure what the definition of authority is now -it is either legitimate power wielded legitimately or it is strength. Under the latter interpretation I suppose that people who are against the common good are given authority but under the former interpretation no one who is evil for the community is truly given authority.

And was Pontius Pilate a good governor because he helped execute Jesus? I think that that interpretation actually makes sense but yet not since 1) this means of securing the common good seems to be too accidental 2) it seems to apply equally well to the Pharisees, etc. ?

(From an earlier post): “unless somehow living in the white house or going to congress inherently orders one to the common good to a higher degree -in which case what is the point of allowing anyone else but the immediate members of gov. to exercise political power?” (I think that makes this part more intelligible).

 

[TimothyH]

1. why should people respect authority? All true authority is from God so someone who isn’t Godly can’t have authority -I’m pretty sure that’ s a syllogism w/2 true premises.
2. unless somehow living in the white house or going to congress is inherently orders one more to the common good -in which case what is the point of allowing anyone else but the immediate members of gov. to exercise political power?
3. OR unless authority really just means strength or is justified simply because strength comes from God? But in that case, how can one square this with the moral admissability w/the overthrow of a gov.? Wouldn’t that be contradicting? Or would it be okay since the rebels could have only won if they had more strength and so more authority?

What you are describing is the absence of authority - anarchy.

Authority comes from God but he has granted that men should exercise authority on earth on his behalf.

*When the crowds saw this they were struck with awe and glorified God who had given such authority to human beings. (Matthew 9:8)

Then Jesus approached and said to them, "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, (Matthew 28:18-19)*

I am not God yet I have authority over my children inside of my home. That authority has been granted to me by God but I am not God.

Power does not equal authority. I smell Karl Marx or Ayn Rand or something. I’m done here.

-Tim-

 

[StrawberryJam]

It’s never a good idea to assume what someone thinks,
It’s much better to ask them more about what they say

And then, and only then will you be able to untangle
The words that are in a salad

 

[fakename]

What you are describing is the absence of authority - anarchy.

Authority comes from God but he has granted that men should exercise authority on earth on his behalf.

When the crowds saw this they were struck with awe and glorified God who had given such authority to human beings. (Matthew 9:8)

Then Jesus approached and said to them, "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, (Matthew 28:18-19)

I am not God yet I have authority over my children inside of my home. That authority has been granted to me by God but I am not God.

Power does not equal authority. I smell Karl Marx or Ayn Rand or something. I’m done here.

-Tim-

so what is legitimate authority -I can only surmise from what others say that it is a power that is exercised w/o being against the common good. In that case then, as long as an official isn’t governing against said good, even if accidentally, then that government is legitimate? But then, if a gov. can rule justly w/o doing anything in favor of the good of the whole, then what is its purpose, why does it exist?

 

[StrawberryJam]

so what is legitimate authority -I can only surmise from what others say that it is a power that is exercised w/o being against the common good. In that case then, as long as an official isn’t governing against said good, even if accidentally, then that government is legitimate? But then, if a gov. can rule justly w/o doing anything in favor of the good of the whole, then what is its purpose, why does it exist?

Are you seriously thinking that a government is going to rule justly in favor of the whole?
Who ever told you this? Is this simply a thread to promote a theocracy?

 

[fakename]

Are you seriously thinking that a government is going to rule justly in favor of the whole?
Who ever told you this? Is this simply a thread to promote a theocracy?

I thought that a gov. protects the common good -that is the good of the whole and in so doing such a gov. is just. It is I suppose an ideal that won’t be realized but I think it is necessarily a state’s raison d’etre.

No one ever told me this, it was a surmise rather, from Aquinas,Cicero, Plato.

This is not a thread to promote theocracy. I’m confused that one would think that I was a theocrat and since I seem to be causing equal confusion to others I apologize.

But for now, just a yes or no question: can a gov. official (in his official character) actually say, “I’m going to kill that person for the common good.” Or does it have to be more like when anyone else kills -they have to do it w/o intending the death of the person?

 

[Joel_PF]

No direct killing of the innocent for the common good is ever allowed, be it done by private citizens or by the government.

 

[fakename]

No direct killing of the innocent for the common good is ever allowed, be it done by private citizens or by the government.

Sorry I meant directly intended killing of the non-innocent by the state.

 

[Peepers]

Sorry I meant directly intended killing of the non-innocent by the state.

We know that the state kills innocent people. Now that DNA evidence is being used retroactively, there is conclusive evidence that a small percentage of people convicted of capital crimes have been wrongly committed. A close friend of my family was convicted of murdering his wife. The actual killer was discovered, and he was released after serving seven years of prison time. He went on to become the City Attorney of well known city. Good thing he was not executed.

An issue which I have faced is, what does a military person do, when he believes that a war is not just, and that his government did not have the moral authority to start the war? In the case of the Iraq war, the Pope was very diplomatic with his language, but he made it clear in my opinion, that the war was not a “just war.” I chose to deploy anyway, because I was not brave enough to stand up to the legal consequences. A man was accused of cowardice in this war, because he refused to return to Iraq. In the military, the charge of cowardice is a capital offense. I was also ambivalent about my duty. I felt an obligation to the other men in my unit. I felt that it was morally incumbent upon us to repair the country which we had broken with an incompetent invasion plan, executed by an incompetent head of state, and so on… I also knew that if I deployed, that I could be required to kill other people, and to destroy their property. I also believed by that time, that the war had not been started and was not being fought in order to defend the United States, or its people. Based on what I had seen already in Iraq, and subsequent events in the US and the World, I strongly believed that the motivation for the war was for monetary reward to companies like Haliburton, and to achieve the political aims of the President and his party.

You may not agree with my assessment. We all have our opinions. The reason I mention it is to make my state of mind at the time clear. I chose to deploy, and it turned out to be the most violent year in that war. It did kill people. What would you have done (anyone who wants to reply)?

 

[StrawberryJam]

Sorry I meant directly intended killing of the non-innocent by the state.

Stoning still goes on in countries where they really believe they are protecting the common good by doing so.

 

[Peepers]

Stoning still goes on in countries where they really believe they are protecting the common good by doing so.

Stoning really hurts, too. I was once on patrol, and on foot. A group of kids surrounded us and started stoning us. It hurt.

 

[fakename]

Stoning still goes on in countries where they really believe they are protecting the common good by doing so.

I wouldn’t count that as a reductio ad absurdum -that is, if stoning is what is needed to secure the common good in one case I don’t think that it would be objectionable. (executions for heresy for instance, weren’t unjust)

I ask -is it okay to say that Pilate’s execution of Jesus accomplished the common good (just a question)?

and also why is it that legitimate authority=authority that is not, at least, against the common good and not a body that positively promotes it?

Is the common good, by definition, knowable only by the state and its officers alone? perhaps because the state stands in the position of an objective observer or has no private good of its own?

I’m trying to understand so please hit me w/ as much text as you want.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I wouldn’t count that as a reductio ad absurdum -that is, if stoning is what is needed to secure the common good in one case I don’t think that it would be objectionable. (executions for heresy for instance, weren’t unjust)

I ask -is it okay to say that Pilate’s execution of Jesus accomplished the common good (just a question)?

and also why is it that legitimate authority=authority that is not, at least, against the common good and not a body that positively promotes it?

Is the common good, by definition, knowable only by the state and its officers alone? perhaps because the state stands in the position of an objective observer or has no private good of its own?

I’m trying to understand so please hit me w/ as much text as you want.

I will try, but for right now I am feeling a very heavy weight on my shoulders to try to chip through all the layers and layers of things that need general housecleaning if you pardon my expression.
I have to say you have to be one of only nine people here I have seen that has caused me to have such a headache just trying to digest your thought process.

 

[fakename]

I will try, but for right now I am feeling a very heavy weight on my shoulders to try to chip through all the layers and layers of things that need general housecleaning if you pardon my expression.
I have to say you have to be one of only nine people here I have seen that has caused me to have such a headache just trying to digest your thought process.

This should make things clear:

you know the common good best if and only if you are the true ruler.

This is because the greater thing orders, and is the end of, the lower thing and so if someone is greater in knowledge about the common good then that person orders the person lower in such knowledge.

People are to follow legitimate authority -that is those who know the common good best (and those who know the best may or may not be those who are in control of political power.)

If they are not in control of political power and yet all of anyone else are in political power, then none of the others would be those who know the common good. So really the former, because they don’t know the common good, would not be true rulers. And so they hold their power unjustly and produce unjust laws. So therefore since it is desirable to be ruled not by tyrants or anyone else except the good, then it would be right to replace these rulers with the true rulers.

What confuses me is the proposition that authority is legitimate (just?) as long as it doesn’t actively become illegitimate (as long as it is not unjust?). It seems to say that if someone rules, then that rule is unquestionable until the rulers begin to actually do bad things -in this case the person who is lesser potentially rules over those who are better -and this seems to be an inversion of nature or at least the rule that the greater is the end of the lesser -that the servants serve the master. There are certainly objections to my views but I want to here yours specifically.

But even I forgot the original question which is: can a ruler intentionally kill someone for the sake of the public?