A
Aboveallbereal
Guest
This is to misunderstand intent. Intent under duress in not intent.
- Status
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
No, for all the impeccably clear reasons that have been explained over and over again in this thread.
(a) Neither of your options applies to any of those poor people, and even if one did, your choices are still a false dichotomy. They weren’t trying to die, and they weren’t trying to live. They were trying to avoid pain - to escape the searing agony of unbearable heat, which fits neither of the options you’ve presented.
(b) Besides, we shouldn’t intellectualize their “intent” like this. Have you heard nothing Monte and others have said? They acted reflexively, on instinct.
That’s true only because we know nothing else about these individuals. We do know definitively that their jumping out the windows was not sinful or suicidal. Don’t ask me to justify this. I don’t feel like doing it again; just actually read the thread.
Again, false dichotomy. They weren’t choosing between life and death. That choice was made for them. And more importantly, “intent” doesn’t apply as it normally does when you’re ON FIRE.
We don’t have to know their minds. We know quite definitively the uncontrollable instinct that led them to leap from the buildings.
Who is really bringing the false dichotomy to the party here?
I propose that we cannot know what is going on in their minds and therefore cannot judge their true intent.
We can speak to the sinfullness of the act when a given intent is behind it, but unless we our historic mind readers, we cannot judge their actions.
I have not brought in anything that we do not know.
Nor have I attempted to create a false set of conditions.
I am simply working with what is not known.
Knowing the intent behind an action is necessary to making a wise judgement about the action. You can claim that they did not have full mental faculty, but that claim runs contrary to what we already know. Specifically that we are not mind readers and therefore cannot make the judgement concerning mental faculty of these people.
If this instinct was really uncontrollable, ALL of them would have attempted to jump. And we simply do not know if that is the case.
Your argument to instinct may be true for some. But I seriously doubt it is the case for all.
We must go with what we do not know. And we do not know the precise thoughts and intents of every individual jumping from those buildings.
So let me reiterate my answer and try to make it plainer.
Was what they did sinful?
We do not know. We know what does and does not constitute a sin in this case, but without crawling into the head of these individuals, we cannot know if the criteria applies.
God however, can. And will perfectly judge these individuals for what they are or are not guilty of.
I have read the thread. And the one that preceded this one.
We cannot answer the question because we simply do not have all the information necessary to judge the action.
Was it instinct? We do not know.
Was it to take command of how they will die (a sin)? We do not know.
Was it to try to take a slim chance at surviving the fall? We do not know.
Was it to try to slide down the side of the building? We do not know.
Was it simply an accident? We do not know.
It is a very difficult topic.
No one wishes to believe any of these individuals commited suicide and intended every bit of the sin it can be.
I do not either. But I know what I do not know.
Our lack of knowledge logically leads us to address this sin as a possibility.
L
LemonAndLime
Guest
Apart from the obvious, I think the one of the saddest things about the 9/11 jumpers was that they were airbrushed out of photographs and video clips. For a country which is big on freedom of expression, it showed gross intolerence.
I find it sad that people can’t deal with suicide and talk about the sin of killing themselves rather than the sins done against them. It’s a final, last desperate attempt of taking control over their own lives. It’s not done to cause offense against God.
I find it sad that people can’t deal with suicide and talk about the sin of killing themselves rather than the sins done against them. It’s a final, last desperate attempt of taking control over their own lives. It’s not done to cause offense against God.
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
Empty, hollow rhetoric. What is the false dichotomy I’m presenting here? I haven’t even presented two options; I’ve been pretty darn insistent about this. So what are you talking about? Furthermore, this topic is about as far from a party as one can get.
It’s shortsighted lunacy to claim that we cannot gauge the intent of those people. If you don’t see this, then you’re past any help I can provide.
(a) “our” does not equal “are”
(b) Let me try and help you understand something. Imagine this scenario:
The stove in a kitchen is on, and for some reason our friend Beatrice, not realizing this, touches the hot part. She yelps in pain and surprise as she quickly pulls her hand away.
How ridiculous would it be if an observer said, “Hmm… I don’t know her intent in pulling her hand away immediately. I mean, I can guess, but I’m not a mind reader, so I technically can’t gauge her intent.”
That’s how absurd you’re being.
(c) Even if duress and instinct were not involved, you’d still be wrong, because the only sinful intention possibly involved would be the intention to kill oneself, and it’s obvious that that wasn’t their intention. They weren’t jumping out of the windows because they wanted to die. Again, if you can’t see that, then you’re certainly beyond my aid.
No, but your amateur attempt at moral theology lacks an application that makes any sense whatsoever. You don’t understand what “intent” is. You’re confusing means and ends. And you’re ignoring basic human realities that are self-evident, rage as you might against this unavoidable fact.
Yes, you have. One of the “options” you’ve presented is that perhaps some of those people jumped in order to die.
And that’s insane. It shows that you completely misunderstand the basic definition of “intention” or the “end” of a moral act.
Unless some of those people went into the World Trade Center that morning planning on killing themselves by jumping out of a window and the terrorist attacks simply gave them a nice excuse, then the intention to die is self-evidently irrelevant and inapplicable here.
If you really can’t see that… well, I needn’t repeat myself a second time.
I have nothing to say to the above sentence, but I wanted to quote it because I think it speaks for itself magnificently. I hope other participants of this thread don’t miss it.
If unbearable heat bears down upon you, I know how you’ll react, vz71. Because you’re a human being who cannot biologically withstand certain temperatures.
So why did the rest jump? There is no other reason. If you can’t think of one, it’s because there isn’t one.
insert stove/burn analogy again here
You’re wrong, and you don’t know what you’re talking about. The answer is no.
Even if our point about instinct were completely wrong, the answer would still be no, because their act would undeniably meet the four criteria of the principle of double effect, which allows us to gauge the morality of an act whose agent foresees but does not cause an evil result of their action.
Please look up double effect on wikipedia. You’ll understand all of this so much better.
Look up double effect.
Look up double effect.
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
Then your ignorance of the principle of double effect is far from innocent.
Yes we do. Look up double effect.
Your words speak for themselves here.
I haven’t even mentioned this yet, but one thing we do know is that their moral culpability was severely diminished. I’m surprised I didn’t mention that before, but I suppose it’s quite telling that I didn’t need to in order to refute even the mere possibility of “suicide” on their part.
No, it’s painful. But it is not intellectually difficult. The moral analysis is quite clear.
Only if you know what you’re talking about.
I think I’ll end every further reply in this thread by quoting this:
So that I don’t forget - so that we don’t forget - what it was probably like…
My debate teacher once told me that when you start attacking command of the language instead of the argument, you have lost the argument.
I believe he was right.
Actually, this particular reaction is a reflex. There is no thought involved, just the body reacting to save itself harm.
And it is entirely different then an entire set of actions culminating in crawling out a window.
But let’s go with that thought for a moment…these people are acting purely on an instinctive level and are not thinking…
OK, let’s look at double effect…
Double effect rquires a decision. It requires intent.
Your reflex analogy here eliminates that possibility as you wish us to believe they did not think, just reacted.
There cannot be double effect without a conscious decision that your own statements above have discounted.
You cannot have it both ways.
Either you apply double effect and allow these people to think through their actions, or you do not and drop the double effect argument.
Now if you allow thought, then you must allow the possibility of all thoughts to the action and the possibility of sin.
Unless you are privy to the thoughts of these individuals…?
Thanks for the offer, but I do not require aid from you.
However, this part of your response confuses me.
If you are so certain, why do you entertain the possibility?
And beyond that, why do you claim as obvious what you cannot know without actually being there?
Do you know something about these people that no one else does?
Have you intimate knowledge of their final thoughts?
If not, then what exactly is the word ‘obvious’ doing here?
You will forgive that I edited your response slightly.
I bolded a very pertinent word here. PROBABLY.
We do not know for certain.
Without this knowledge, we cannot know how sinful their final actions may or may not have been.
The truly ironic thing is that your analysis may be correct for some in the situation.
Double Effect may well be a factor in the culpability of many individuals.
But we cannot know with certainty. Only God has this knowledge.
It could be.
Or it could be an well thought out act based on the possibilities in front of them.
Death in a fire, or the freakishly small chance of survival out the window.
Or it could be an accident…windows could be difficult to discern in the smoke, walking right out a shattered window without realizing it is possible.
Or it could be decidedly darker. A curse to God for allowing the circumstance, and a final insult in taking their own life rather then allowing God’s circumstance to have it.
As for myself, I prefer to believe that the majority of these people died with a prayer to God on their lips. That they found comfort in their final moments and spent the time they could praising their creator in spite of it all.
Sure there are a number of possibilities, but I am an optimist.
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
I believe that command of the language is justly necessary to argue well and to be taken seriously.
I admit, however, that my grammatical correction was snarky.
Instinct prevails for longer than an instant when such pain persists.
Besides, I still can’t get past the part where you don’t see the self-evident obviousness of the fact that those people didn’t want to die.
I don’t need to have it both ways. I’ve simply got all my bases covered.
Their duress does mitigate their culpability. But even if it didn’t, double effect would easily exonerate them. My double effect argument is a reductio ad absurdum against the logically tortured and legalistic quagmire that is the notion that any of those people can reasonably be thought to have been guilty of suicide.
The offer stands.
I don’t. I show what would follow if it were not only possible but true.
I don’t need to have been there to know that human beings recoil instinctively from pain.
Thankfully, no. That would be difficult to endure.
The word “obvious” was used in this way: I said it was obvious that they didn’t intend to kill themselves.
Do you think any of the victims of September 11 wanted to die? Or would they not rather have preferred to live?
Okay, I genuinely think you may misunderstand double effect. Would you mind explaining to me how you would apply its criteria to the following situation:
EXAMPLE: “Man A” needs some extra money, and he has property to rent. A prospective renter - “Man B” - intends to open and operate a strip club on the property. Is it moral for the first man to rent this property to that individual? In this hypothetical, assume that “Man A” shares our moral code and wants to do the right thing, and that he does have explicit prior knowledge of what “Man B” intends to do with the property.
Please explain (a) why this is the type of situation to which the principle of double effect applies, and (b) what an application of the principle yields about the morality of Man A accepting Man B’s offer: morally acceptable, immoral, or not enough information (and if there’s not enough information, identify what other information you would need).
This is an honest request that I think will help me understand why you’re saying what you’re saying. If you don’t want to for whatever reason - though I can’t imagine why you wouldn’t - I won’t imply or assume that it’s because you don’t understand the principle. I promise.
Oh, and I almost forgot:
S
SnakeMauler
Guest
The sinners here are the terrorists who did so by the “instruction” (or “misinterpretation”) of their religion who is supposedly somehow related to ours based off the fact that they ripped off Judeo-Christian tradition. May God have mercy on the souls of those who jumped.
HOW exactly can you know this?
What exact qualification do you have that gives you this special insight into the minds of these individuals?
You wish to blanket exonerate everyone that jumped, yet you do not know enough of the circumstance to make any of the claims you are making.
All I am indicating is that the possibility must be addressed.
Yet for some reason you cannot stand even a possibility.
Such a hard stance can only come with someone that knows everything there is to know of the circumstances.
You cannot use two mutually exclusive arguments and believe anyone can take you seriously.
I see.
You wish to claim reduced mental faculty as well as a reasoned approach and double effect.
You are not making any sense.
Perhaps.
But you would have to be there to know what exactly they were feeling and thinking.
Unless we are switching back from double effect to a reduced mental faculty.
I am finding it difficult to keep up with which argument you are using when.
Why not? Why is it so difficult to believe people would willingly kill themselves?
People do it everyday.
Is it really so difficult to believe that in all of the incidence of these people jumping none intended death?
Or perhaps we are switching back to double effect.
I believe that we cannot judge their intentions.
That is God’s territory, not ours.
I also believe that the full range of emotions may well have been felt by the individuals.
Some may well have made every effort towards life.
But I also address that there may well be those that chose otherwise.
Actually, yes.
It is not germane to the topic at hand.
I know well the meaning and theory.
I also can see very clearly that you are attempting to play both sides of the fence.
Please bear in mind, this lovely little work undermines your double effect argument.
But then, I suppose you will simply switch back to the diminished faculty argument.:yawn:
The real truth here is that no one can know what was or was not going on in the minds of these individuals.
There are some that would like to make saints out of the lot of them based solely upon the circumstances surrounding their deaths.
As comforting as that may be, it ignores reality.
I disagree.
They are not ‘The’ sinners.
They are certainly sinners, and certainly guilty of heinous acts.
But I do not wish to break this into saints and sinners.
That is God’s jurisdiction, not mine.
Agreed.
A
Ashurie
Guest
I am shocked and disgusted that this topic is even being discussed!!If you were in that situation what would you do? Suffer and die a slow very painful death? Or a quick, and not so painful? Either way they would have known their fate, and picked the alternative…
They should not be judged, looked down upon and be called sinners, just because they decided to jump!
God is merciful.
V
Victorious
Guest
I think that was pretty much the consensus in the thread.
Agreed. It is not our place to judge their actions.
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
Indeed. Even my participation in defending them revolts me as something that can never do justice to them.
If you were in that situation what would you do? Suffer and die a slow very painful death? Or a quick, and not so painful? Either way they would have known their fate, and picked the alternative…
They should not be judged, looked down upon and be called sinners, just because they decided to jump!
God is merciful.
But they merit a defense against the notion that any of them may reasonably be thought to be guilty of suicide (since they may not reasonably be thought to be guilty of suicide), and though I am now arguing on strictly intellectual grounds - which are woefully insufficient to do justice to these poor persons’ end - nonetheless my paltry defense should suffice for paltry attacks.
Alright, fair enough. I won’t break my earlier promise, but I’ll go through the theory myself after saying this:
You’re right about one thing - there are two arguments here, one that concerns culpability and one that concerns what can be reasonably assumed about the moral nature of their act.
As to the former, I consider it self-evident that their culpability was demonstrably eliminated. You question this assertion that their culpability’s elimination is self-evident, and I know I won’t convince you at this point. So I don’t mind dropping that argument.
Let other participants read, think, and decide for themselves.
Now, leaving culpability aside…
Properly Applying Moral Theology to the Jumpers
As you probably know, a moral act has three components: its object, its end, and its circumstances. Its object is the deed itself. Its end is the moral agent’s intention or objective - what (s)he desires to achieve.
All three components must be morally good or neutral for the act to be acceptable. If even one is immoral, the act is wrong. An immoral object makes the act immoral. An immoral intention can render even an objectively good act immoral. And certain circumstances too can render immoral even an act whose object and intentions are good.
The object of the jumpers was jumping out a window and/or away from flames. That’s morally neutral. They’re fine.
Their intention is to escape pain - the agony of burning or suffocating to death.
That’s a good intention.
The circumstances, however, include their being far too high to survive a fall. This is where double effect comes in.
Their act has a good effect - avoiding pain, but also a bad one - their death. So it is an act that results in a foreseen evil (foreseen if we leave out all consideration for culpability…)
So does it meet double effect’s four criteria?
Criterion One: Is the object of their act morally good or morally neutral? Yes (see above). It fits this condition.
Criterion Two: Does the moral agent intend or desire the evil effect (as an end)? Obviously not; those people would have preferred to live. It fits this condition.
Criterion Three: Is the good effect (no pain) a direct result of the evil effect (death)? In another words, does the moral agent intend the evil effect as a means?
Obviously not, in this case. It’s not their death which ends their pain, but rather their distance from the flames and the embrace of the cool open air. Both effects here follow from the act; neither effect causes the other. It fits this condition.
Criterion Four: Are the circumstances sufficiently grave to permit the act to cause the foreseen evil?
Of course. This evil effect - their deaths - was totally unavoidable either way. This situation is the very definition of “circumstances sufficiently grave to permit one’s act to cause a foreseen evil.” It fits this condition. It fits all these conditions like a glove fits a hand.
In conclusion:
(A) Your suggestion that it is possible that some of them might have wanted to die is not reasonable. That’s not what “intention” is. Tautologically, intention is what the moral agent wants. None of those people wanted to die that day, so they did not will their deaths as an end. And since the good end they sought - escape from the flames - is not a result of the evil of their deaths, then it’s literally logically impossible for them to have willed their death as a means.
Thus none of them willed their own deaths as an end or as a means.
(B) That said, there remains their undeniable lack of moral culpability in the face of burning, searing, choking agony. That is the final - and very unnecessary, in light of the above - nail in the coffin of the idea that it is in any way reasonable to think any of the jumpers could be guilty of suicide.
And this alone is enough to destroy the argument you are building.
You cannot know what these people did or did not want.
Only God can do that.
A conclusion based upon faulty logic.
An assumption that you cannot know.
I wouldn’t call it undeniable.
Likely, perhaps. But again it requires assumptions and knowledge that we cannot know.
Sounds final alright.
Unfortunately your argument is based upon knowledge that only God can know.
Please provide your source for the following information that is key to your argument:
- The exact intention of every person that jumped.
- The level of pain for each person that jumped.
- The level of agaony for each person that jumped.
- What exactly these people that jumped expected from their action.
- Status