A bare-bones moral dilemma

[sw85]

A person finds himself in the position where he must make a decision. He has two options: 1) to actually do something, or 2) not to do anything (just let things happen). In both cases there is harm to some others, which cannot be avoided. If he does something, the harm is less than the harm coming from non-action. In other words, the harm coming from “comission” is less than the harm coming from “omission”. The “moral” nature of the problem comes from the fact that no matter what he does, harm will come to others - where the nature of the harm is the same, but doing nothing will cause more people to be affected. What should this person do?

I decided not to give any more specifics. The reason is simple: people are wont to concentrate on the specifics, rather than to ponder the generic principle. The question is about the dichotomy of “comission” vs. “omission”.

What are your thoughts?

Unless you have the responsibility to do something, you aren’t responsible for failing to do it. For instance, I am not a police officer, so it’s not my responsibility to enforce the law. Therefore it’s not my fault if I fail to act as a vigilante and some people are, as a result, victimized by violent crime. This is a case where I could act, but don’t, and people suffer as a result, yet no one imagines I am somehow to blame for it.

On the other hand, I always have the responsibility to act in accordance with the moral law. Therefore I am always culpable for what I actually, positively do. Thus, if I do something and someone suffers injustice as a result, I am guilty of perpetrating injustice, even if not acting would’ve resulted in greater injustice.

 

[Pug]

But if you would look at older threads where the case of a runaway streetcar was examined, you would stand alone, because all your brethren “voted” for let the car mow down “n” people, instead of pushing a switch to kill a solitary person standing on the track.

This is quite a claim for all the threads ever here on CAF. Of course you can switch the switch in some of the streetcar scenarios. Presumably you mean me Pug as a “brethren”, since I am Catholic, and I have most definitely been on a trolley car thread, and I would most definitely say you can switch the switch in some trolley car scenarios. I don’t recall if I bothered saying the obvious on that particular thread, but nothing has changed in my thinking since then. The thread was about a particular variant, and not the simplest trolley car set up. Perhaps you have in mind only one thread somewhere in the ether.

PDE applies, and many Catholics know that. (principle of double effect).

 

[davidv]

That is always the case when one wishes to examine a general problem. One must look at the basics, disregarding the peculiarities.

Surprise. The "act" is always neutral. Consider the scenario, where one pulls a gun, points it, and pulls the trigger. This is the act, and it is completely neutral. The act must be viewed in the circumstances, where it was committed. What was the intent? What is the result? One can point it to a target, for practicing. One can point it to someone, with the intent to scare the person, but his finger twitches and inadvertantly pulls the trigger. One can point to an attacker, with the intent to injure, but the bullet kills the person. The gun can be pointed by a policeman or a soldier… the possibilities are endless. You see the point? All the circumstances must be taken into account (as much as possible) before of can make a judgment. {snip}

This is a very bold claim, and contrary to Church teaching. Once these specific steps are put together in sequence, they are no longer separate acts. Murder (unjust killing of another person) is not a morally neutral act. Decomposing it does not change this.

This shows that the scenerio presented must first address the nature of the act. If the nature of the act is immoral, then neither the intent, nor the circumstances can make it moral.

 

[fix]

The church teaches that one MUST take all the THREE pieces into consideration: 1) the intent, 2) the means (the act) and 3) the outcome. Only by considering ALL three pieces can one make a judgment about the morality of the act. As such there cannot be an “intrinsically” evil act, since no one (not even the church) is granted “omniscience” and as such no one can know about ALL the possible intents and ALL the possible outcomes.

This is incorrect. The Church teaches the opposite. Some acts, by their very nature, are intrinsically evil regardless of intention.

 

[sw85]

The church teaches that one MUST take all the THREE pieces into consideration: 1) the intent, 2) the means (the act) and 3) the outcome. Only by considering ALL three pieces can one make a judgment about the morality of the act. As such there cannot be an “intrinsically” evil act, since no one (not even the church) is granted “omniscience” and as such no one can know about ALL the possible intents and ALL the possible outcomes.

Not “means” but “object,” and not “outcome” but “circumstances.”

An “intrinsically evil” act is one that is disordered by object, i.e., such that there are no possible intentions and no possible circumstances that make it morally licit.

 

[SonCatcher]

That is always the case when one wishes to examine a general problem. One must look at the basics, disregarding the peculiarities.

There’s no such thing as a general problem. You have defined certain peculiarities with your opening post. It is irrational to insist that further peculiarities are unneccessary.

Surprise. The "act" is always neutral. Consider the scenario, where one pulls a gun, points it, and pulls the trigger. This is the act, and it is completely neutral. The act must be viewed in the circumstances, where it was committed. What was the intent? What is the result? One can point it to a target, for practicing. One can point it to someone, with the intent to scare the person, but his finger twitches and inadvertantly pulls the trigger. One can point to an attacker, with the intent to injure, but the bullet kills the person. The gun can be pointed by a policeman or a soldier… the possibilities are endless. You see the point? All the circumstances must be taken into account (as much as possible) before of can make a judgment.

Pulling a trigger on a gun is, in fact, always a serious matter because of its lethality. Consider a person firing into the air at a party. The person holding the gun isn’t aiming at somebody. Indeed, he is certain that he isn’t shooting at anybody. Yet, is the bullet strikes someone he is criminally liable.

Let’s pretend that this proposition was never introduced. Whatever happens to one’s alleged “soul” is irrelevant. After all the person can repent and no harm was done to his “soul”.

What happens to the soul is of central importance. Morality is primarily about the state of the soul.

The basic question is still unanswered: “is there a differemce between actively committing an act, or passively allowing it to happen?”.

That wasn’t your question at all. Your question involved outcomes of varying degrees of severity. (one of the peculiarities you formally introduced

 

[Actaeon]

A person finds himself in the position where he must make a decision. He has two options: 1) to actually do something, or 2) not to do anything (just let things happen). In both cases there is harm to some others, which cannot be avoided. If he does something, the harm is less than the harm coming from non-action. In other words, the harm coming from “comission” is less than the harm coming from “omission”. The “moral” nature of the problem comes from the fact that no matter what he does, harm will come to others - where the nature of the harm is the same, but doing nothing will cause more people to be affected. What should this person do?

I decided not to give any more specifics. The reason is simple: people are wont to concentrate on the specifics, rather than to ponder the generic principle. The question is about the dichotomy of “comission” vs. “omission”.

What are your thoughts?

This is simple, as it is a case of double effect. The commission is to be taken provided that:

1. the action taken is not itself morally disordered (aka, I cannot go back in time and murder Albert Einstein to prevent research into atomic weapons)
2. I must not carry out the action of comission with the intent to CAUSE harm, but rather must take it with the intent to prevent something else by omission (in other words, in the famous train example, I cannot intend that the conductor of the train die, but CAN intend that the children in the bus stalled on the other track will live)
3. There is proportionality (to wit, the harm done by the commission is equal to or less than the harm done by omission)

So, you didn’t specify what the comission would entail, and that’s the critical piece that you left unanswered as to whether or not someone should take that action in this generic case. If the comission is for a morally neutral or good act, then it is morally required. If it is for a morally disordered act, then it is morally prohibited. Nothing else needs be said regarding any specifics on any case (because this covers all cases)

 

[Actaeon]

Pulling a trigger on a gun is, in fact, always a serious matter because of its lethality. Consider a person firing into the air at a party. The person holding the gun isn’t aiming at somebody. Indeed, he is certain that he isn’t shooting at anybody. Yet, is the bullet strikes someone he is criminally liable.

Actually, the action of pulling a trigger IS a neutral act… but that action is only a portion of a much large act (murder, target shooting, shooting in defense, etc), otherwise we Catholics would all be forbidden from pulling the trigger on any firearm ever!

However, the ACT of murder which is composed of the action of pulling the trigger with the circumstance of killing an innocent is gravely disordered and is an entirely different ACT than shooting a target (the action of pulling the trigger with the circumstance of hitting only a completely lifeless legally valid target).

The person who fires a gun into the air at a party is not guily of first degree homicide (not secularly, anyway). They are guilty of negligent discharge of a firearm (depending on the legal jurisdiction within which they fall) and possibly a charge of (negligent) manslaughter if the bullet strikes and kills someone. Nonetheless, it is to be noted that the charge of negligent discharge is NOT because the action of pulling a trigger becomes immoral, but rather because the secular authority has the ability to determine in which circumstances one may fire a weapon (including times and locations) and we catholics are bound to follow all such valid laws.

 

[SonCatcher]

Actually, the action of pulling a trigger IS a neutral act… but that action is only a portion of a much large act (murder, target shooting, shooting in defense, etc), otherwise we Catholics would all be forbidden from pulling the trigger on any firearm ever!

However, the ACT of murder which is composed of the action of pulling the trigger with the circumstance of killing an innocent is gravely disordered and is an entirely different ACT than shooting a target (the action of pulling the trigger with the circumstance of hitting only a completely lifeless legally valid target).

The person who fires a gun into the air at a party is not guily of first degree homicide (not secularly, anyway). They are guilty of negligent discharge of a firearm (depending on the legal jurisdiction within which they fall) and possibly a charge of (negligent) manslaughter if the bullet strikes and kills someone. Nonetheless, it is to be noted that the charge of negligent discharge is NOT because the action of pulling a trigger becomes immoral, but rather because the secular authority has the ability to determine in which circumstances one may fire a weapon (including times and locations) and we catholics are bound to follow all such valid laws.

I did not write “immoral.” I wrote “serious.”

A person who accidentally kills another with a gun can be imprisoned for negligent homicide. This is because any bullet fired from a gun can kill.

A person who accidentally kills another by throwing spaghetti would not face such charges because a thrown spaghetti does not inherently have that capability.

 

[underacloud]

This is simple, as it is a case of double effect. The commission is to be taken provided that:

1. the action taken is not itself morally disordered (aka, I cannot go back in time and murder Albert Einstein to prevent research into atomic weapons)
2. I must not carry out the action of comission with the intent to CAUSE harm, but rather must take it with the intent to prevent something else by omission (in other words, in the famous train example, I cannot intend that the conductor of the train die, but CAN intend that the children in the bus stalled on the other track will live)
3. There is proportionality (to wit, the harm done by the commission is equal to or less than the harm done by omission)

So, you didn’t specify what the comission would entail, and that’s the critical piece that you left unanswered as to whether or not someone should take that action in this generic case. If the comission is for a morally neutral or good act, then it is morally required. If it is for a morally disordered act, then it is morally prohibited. Nothing else needs be said regarding any specifics on any case (because this covers all cases)

I think this covers it pretty comprehensively.

Double effect is typically not as hard as people make it out to be at times, even when people concoct complicated cart scenarios etc. But it can be difficult when the morality of the means of action are debatable, or where it is difficult to weigh the ends/outcomes of the alternative choices of action/inaction.

 

[Tyrion]

Unless you have the responsibility to do something, you aren’t responsible for failing to do it. For instance, I am not a police officer, so it’s not my responsibility to enforce the law. Therefore it’s not my fault if I fail to act as a vigilante and some people are, as a result, victimized by violent crime. This is a case where I could act, but don’t, and people suffer as a result, yet no one imagines I am somehow to blame for it.

Your attitude is not unique. Poncius Pilate also “washed his hands” - a strange bedfellow for a “catholic”. Also you are mistaken that you will not be blamed for failing to provide assistance or act preventively. It is not just morally reprehensible to fail to provide assistance, in most places it is a criminal act, punishable by law.

Let’s just look at a possible scenario. Someone is drowning, and you have a life-line at your fingertips, yet you fail to throw it ---- since: “you are not the lifeguard on duty, so it is not your resonsibility to provide assistance”. Do you really thing that this “defense” will be accepted? Or suppose you happen to get unquestionable info about a planned terrorist attack, and you fail to provide that info to the proper authorities - after all “you are not part of the law enforcement” - so it is not your responsibility. When your negligence is discovered… what will be your just and well deserved “reward”?

This responsibility you speak of - where does it come from? I may only be a despicable heathen (as I have been “of so lovingly” told by some believers), but in my ethical system this responsibility is self-imposed, coming from the concept that I respect my follow humans and wish to help them in this life. I know, this life is not relevant when compared to the “eternal whatever”.

On the other hand, I always have the responsibility to act in accordance with the moral law. Therefore I am always culpable for what I actually, positively do. Thus, if I do something and someone suffers injustice as a result, I am guilty of perpetrating injustice, even if not acting would’ve resulted in greater injustice.

Yes, I am aware of this kind of “excuse”, which is nothing but rationalization - and I do not respect it.

 

[Tyrion]

This is a very bold claim, and contrary to Church teaching. Once these specific steps are put together in sequence, they are no longer separate acts. Murder (unjust killing of another person) is not a morally neutral act. Decomposing it does not change this.

What is wrong with precision? Murder is not the same as homocide, even thought the physical act is the same. What is the difference? Yep, you guessed it: it is the intent! The church actually teaches (in the catechism) that all three parts must be considered: “the intent, the act and the outcome”. Yes, I know that the church also teaches the other variant. That is your problem, how to reconcile two contradictory teachings.

This shows that the scenerio presented must first address the nature of the act. If the nature of the act is immoral, then neither the intent, nor the circumstances can make it moral.

The “act” itself is always morally neutral. It is the intent and the outcome which give it a “flavor” of morality. Let’s examine one of the most heinous, despicable, disordered, disgusting activities - masturbation (disclaimer: I do not subscribe to those adjectives - I simply “borrowed” them). What is the act? Touching one’s genitals. It could be simply an act of cleaning the organ, which is (hopefully) permissible. It is again the intent and the outcome which makes the act (in your eyes, of course) problematic or “sinful”.

 

[Tyrion]

This is simple, as it is a case of double effect. The commission is to be taken provided that:

1. the action taken is not itself morally disordered (aka, I cannot go back in time and murder Albert Einstein to prevent research into atomic weapons)
2. I must not carry out the action of comission with the intent to CAUSE harm, but rather must take it with the intent to prevent something else by omission (in other words, in the famous train example, I cannot intend that the conductor of the train die, but CAN intend that the children in the bus stalled on the other track will live)
3. There is proportionality (to wit, the harm done by the commission is equal to or less than the harm done by omission)

So, you didn’t specify what the comission would entail, and that’s the critical piece that you left unanswered as to whether or not someone should take that action in this generic case. If the comission is for a morally neutral or good act, then it is morally required. If it is for a morally disordered act, then it is morally prohibited. Nothing else needs be said regarding any specifics on any case (because this covers all cases)

Pretty good analysis. Let’s emphasize what is the most important part: it is the “INTENT” which makes all the difference. Acts in and by themselves are always morally neutral, it is the intent and the outcome which make them morally acceptable or not.

So the only valid solution is “comission” is preferred to “omission” - in this case. If the action would cause more harm, than inaction, then the inaction would be preferred. If the harm would be the same, then there would be no dilemma.

 

[sw85]

Your attitude is not unique. Poncius Pilate also “washed his hands” - a strange bedfellow for a “catholic”.

I don’t know why you’d bring Pontius Pilate into this. Pilate had authority and responsibility to enforce justice, which obligated him to acquit Jesus. So his omission in this regard, i.e., his decision to defer justice to an irresponsible and illegitimate mob, is morally culpable.

I don’t appreciate your attitude, by the way. You came to Catholic Answers presumably to get an answer consonant with Catholicism. If you don’t like the answer, fine, but don’t presume to scold me like an effeminate teenager for it.

Also you are mistaken that you will not be blamed for failing to provide assistance or act preventively. It is not just morally reprehensible to fail to provide assistance, in most places it is a criminal act, punishable by law.

I’m denying that it’s necessarily morally reprehensible, so repeating the assertion isn’t particularly helpful. And we’re talking about morality here, not what is civilly punishable.

Let’s just look at a possible scenario. Someone is drowning, and you have a life-line at your fingertips, yet you fail to throw it ---- since: “you are not the lifeguard on duty, so it is not your resonsibility to provide assistance”. Do you really thing that this “defense” will be accepted?

This is a bizarre analogy since it clearly isn’t what you described in the OP. Moral responsibility doesn’t just arise from social roles but from human nature itself, of which social roles are only one aspect of many. My duty to help someone drowning is the same as that of a lifeguard’s, but the nature of my failure is different. If someone drowns while I’m using the bathroom at the swimming pool, I’m not culpable. If someone drowns while the lifeguard is using the bathroom, he is at least potentially culpable. See?

Again, this is a strange example though, since it isn’t the sort of situation you describe in the OP, i.e., doing evil in order to bring about some greater good. There is nothing evil in throwing someone a life line, so I am left to wonder why you chose to bring up this example. Are you equivocating deliberately, or negligently?

Here’s something more like what you describe: I’m a doctor with five patients, each dying from a different sort of organ failure. A sixth patient comes in for routine surgery, during which I kill him and harvest his organs, transplanting them into the other five patients and thereby saving their lives. Have I done a good thing?

Or suppose you happen to get unquestionable info about a planned terrorist attack, and you fail to provide that info to the proper authorities - after all “you are not part of the law enforcement” - so it is not your responsibility. When your negligence is discovered… what will be your just and well deserved “reward”?

Again, this is not the sort of situation you described in the OP. You are equivocating badly here.

This responsibility you speak of - where does it come from? I may only be a despicable heathen (as I have been “of so lovingly” told by some believers), but in my ethical system this responsibility is self-imposed, coming from the concept that I respect my follow humans and wish to help them in this life. I know, this life is not relevant when compared to the “eternal whatever”.

It arises organically from the natural law. You might benefit from reading into Catholic moral theology; I gather from your earlier mistakes about Catholic moral teaching that you aren’t terribly well-versed in it. *Veritatis Splendour *is pretty much the go-to document on moral theology but you might benefit from a more philosophical approach, e.g., Edward Feser’s Aquinas.

Yes, I am aware of this kind of “excuse”, which is nothing but rationalization - and I do not respect it.

That’s an assertion, not an argument. And again, mind your tone. You’re a guest here; you asked a question and were given an answer. Show some gratitude.

 

[Tyrion]

… i.e., doing evil in order to bring about some greater good.

There was nothing in the OP about “doing evil”. That is only your misunderstanding. You explictly said - without any qualifiers that as long you are not “responsible” to protect others, your failure to provide assistance is “morally acceptable”. That is what I was questioning.

And again, mind your tone.

Nice example of “charity”…

 

[fix]

The “act” itself is always morally neutral. It is the intent and the outcome which give it a “flavor” of morality. Let’s examine one of the most heinous, despicable, disordered, disgusting activities - masturbation (disclaimer: I do not subscribe to those adjectives - I simply “borrowed” them). What is the act? Touching one’s genitals. It could be simply an act of cleaning the organ, which is (hopefully) permissible. It is again the intent and the outcome which makes the act (in your eyes, of course) problematic or “sinful”.

This is what the Church actually teaches:

By the object of a given moral act, then, one cannot mean a process or an event of the merely physical order, to be assessed on the basis of its ability to bring about a given state of affairs in the outside world. Rather, that object is the proximate end of a deliberate decision which determines the act of willing on the part of the acting person. Consequently, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, “there are certain specific kinds of behaviour that are always wrong to choose, because choosing them involves a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil”.127 And Saint Thomas observes that “it often happens that man acts with a good intention, but without spiritual gain, because he lacks a good will. Let us say that someone robs in order to feed the poor: in this case, even though the intention is good, the uprightness of the will is lacking. Consequently, no evil done with a good intention can be excused. ‘There are those who say: And why not do evil that good may come? Their condemnation is just’ (Rom 3:8)”.128

The reason why a good intention is not itself sufficient, but a correct choice of actions is also needed, is that the human act depends on its object, whether that object is capable or not of being ordered to God, to the One who “alone is good”, and thus brings about the perfection of the person. An act is therefore good if its object is in conformity with the good of the person with respect for the goods morally relevant for him. Christian ethics, which pays particular attention to the moral object, does not refuse to consider the inner “teleology” of acting, inasmuch as it is directed to promoting the true good of the person; but it recognizes that it is really pursued only when the essential elements of human nature are respected. The human act, good according to its object, is also capable of being ordered to its ultimate end.

Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature “incapable of being ordered” to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed “intrinsically evil” (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that “there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object”.131

 

[Actaeon]

What is wrong with precision? Murder is not the same as homocide, even thought the physical act is the same. What is the difference? Yep, you guessed it: it is the intent! The church actually teaches (in the catechism) that all three parts must be considered: “the intent, the act and the outcome”. Yes, I know that the church also teaches the other variant. That is your problem, how to reconcile two contradictory teachings.

There is just one problem here: an act may be morally neutral, while the ACTION it supports is intrinsically evil. That is because ACTIONS are composed of both the act and the object (circumstance). Murder is the ACTION of combining the act of pulling the trigger of a firearm with the object being the innocent victim. Justifiable homicide, such as defense, is the ACTION of combining the act of pulling the trigger with the object being defending against a non-innocent attacker.

While the ACT is the same, the ACTION is totally different. That is why the church asks us to weigh the morality of the ACTION being considered to determine if it is intrinsically evil or not… because like it or not the ACTION of murdering someone and the ACTION of justifiable homicide are two TOTALLY different things.

Pretty good analysis. Let’s emphasize what is the most important part: it is the “INTENT” which makes all the difference. Acts in and by themselves are always morally neutral, it is the intent and the outcome which make them morally acceptable or not.

So the only valid solution is “comission” is preferred to “omission” - in this case. If the action would cause more harm, than inaction, then the inaction would be preferred. If the harm would be the same, then there would be no dilemma.

You are entirely incorrect. The church does not give weight to each of the three criteria for the principle of double effect. The ACTION must not be evil, the intent must not be evil, and the outcomes must have proportionally neutral or good effect. All three must be met.

Therefore comission is NOT always better than omission simply because of the outcome projected. One CANNOT commit sin to produce good, period, bottom line.

And as per previous, an act is merely part of an action. While acts are neutral because they are devoid of objects, actions are not (regardless of intent). I cannot go back in time and murder Albert Einstein and claim it is a good thing because I intended to prevent the development of the nuclear bomb (and therefore prevent the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima) because the ACTION of murder is intrinsically wrong regardless of my good intention to prevent 100,000 deaths.

 

[Tyrion]

There is just one problem here: an act may be morally neutral, while the ACTION it supports is intrinsically evil. That is because ACTIONS are composed of both the act and the object (circumstance). Murder is the ACTION of combining the act of pulling the trigger of a firearm with the object being the innocent victim. Justifiable homicide, such as defense, is the ACTION of combining the act of pulling the trigger with the object being defending against a non-innocent attacker.

While the ACT is the same, the ACTION is totally different. That is why the church asks us to weigh the morality of the ACTION being considered to determine if it is intrinsically evil or not… because like it or not the ACTION of murdering someone and the ACTION of justifiable homicide are two TOTALLY different things.

You are playing with words here. But, let’s lend some credence to this distinction, and see where it leads.

Even if you consider the act and the object together, it is not enough to make a judgment call. One error in your argument was the application of the word “murder”. Murder is simply a legal term, indicating an unlawful homicide. Staying with the example, the “act” can be pulling the trigger of a gun, wielding a sharp object (knife or a scalpel) and the object is a human being. The “action” is still morally neutral, if considered in and by itself. It can be a homicide, or it can be a surgery. Without more information about the intent you are not in the position to make a judgment.

While acts are neutral because they are devoid of objects, actions are not (regardless of intent). I cannot go back in time and murder Albert Einstein and claim it is a good thing because I intended to prevent the development of the nuclear bomb (and therefore prevent the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima) because the ACTION of murder is intrinsically wrong regardless of my good intention to prevent 100,000 deaths.

You really should have made a better example; after all time travel is not possible. So, let’s take something that is possible.

1. You are in the position to prevent a terrorist from blowing up a city. The only way you can do it is killing the terrorist. That act would be considered a justifyable homicide by any rational standard.
2. Another example is: you are a soldier; your buddy is severly injured and you are chased by the enemy. There is no way to bring him back to safety. You can choose to leave him and risk his capture and torture, or administer an action called “mercy killing”. That is another justified act - by rational standards, of course. As a matter of fact, it would also conform to the golden rule: “you do to the other soldier what you would want him to do if the roles were reversed”.
3. Or take the story from the movie “Full Metal Jacket”. The American soldiers are ambushed by a single Vietnamese woman, who kills a few members of the platoon. Eventually she is cornered and lethally injured. She begs to be killed. One of the soldiers says: “we shall just leave her to the mother-loving rats”. The main character (Joker) says: it is inhumane to leave her suffer, we should kill her. The other soldier says: “you wanna waste her, YOU waste her”. And Joker raises his gun and does it. Mind you she is harmless at that point, so the act cannot be considered self-defense. How does the church view the act of killing her: “mercy killing” or something else? It is still not murder, even though in a war murder is “redefined” for convenience sake.
4. Your close relative is in hospital, under terrible pain, which resists all the pain killers and about to die soon. She begs you to end her misery. You can provide the means for her to commit suicide, or - if she is unable to do it herself - you can administer the drug to “put her to sleep”. Now, depending on the law, this might be considered “murder”, evne though the provision “with malice aforethought” is definitely missing. By the way, if it were your pet, you would have no problem with ending its misery (at least I would hope so) in the name of being compassionate and humane. Why is it considered “moral” to be more humane to a pet, than to a human being?

The point is that even with your definition of “action” you are still unable to make a judgment without taking the “intent” and the “outcome” into consideration.

 

[SonCatcher]

You are playing with words here.

Allow me to introduce you: Pot, this is Kettle. Kettle, this is Pot.

1. You are in the position to prevent a terrorist from blowing up a city. The only way you can do it is killing the terrorist. That act would be considered a justifyable homicide by any rational standard.

Legitimate defense. This is not at issue.

1. Another example is: you are a soldier; your buddy is severly injured and you are chased by the enemy. There is no way to bring him back to safety. You can choose to leave him and risk his capture and torture, or administer an action called “mercy killing”. That is another justified act - by rational standards, of course. As a matter of fact, it would also conform to the golden rule: “you do to the other soldier what you would want him to do if the roles were reversed”.

Murder. You cannot know for certain that he would be tortured.

1. Or take the story from the movie “Full Metal Jacket”. The American soldiers are ambushed by a single Vietnamese woman, who kills a few members of the platoon. Eventually she is cornered and lethally injured. She begs to be killed. One of the soldiers says: “we shall just leave her to the mother-loving rats”. The main character (Joker) says: it is inhumane to leave her suffer, we should kill her. The other soldier says: “you wanna waste her, YOU waste her”. And Joker raises his gun and does it. Mind you she is harmless at that point, so the act cannot be considered self-defense. How does the church view the act of killing her: “mercy killing” or something else? It is still not murder, even though in a war murder is “redefined” for convenience sake.

Murder. It may be that she could have been saved with medical intervention. (I only saw that film once, about twenty years ago so I don’t recal the particulars of her wounds, but even if they were objectively fatal, euthanasia is still immoral. See below)

1. Your close relative is in hospital, under terrible pain, which resists all the pain killers and about to die soon. She begs you to end her misery. You can provide the means for her to commit suicide, or - if she is unable to do it herself - you can administer the drug to “put her to sleep”. Now, depending on the law, this might be considered “murder”, evne though the provision “with malice aforethought” is definitely missing. By the way, if it were your pet, you would have no problem with ending its misery (at least I would hope so) in the name of being compassionate and humane. Why is it considered “moral” to be more humane to a pet, than to a human being?

Euthanasia is morally equivalent to murder. It is permissible to apply enough sedative to keep such a relative unconscious but not a known fatal dose.

Interestingly, morphine is known to be fatal in high amounts but the particular dose varies from person to person. The relative would be allowed to increase morphine intake in moderate amounts to attempt to control the pain. This is not suicide since she would only be trying to manage the pain, not terminate her life.

The point is that even with your definition of “action” you are still unable to make a judgment without taking the “intent” and the “outcome” into consideration.

In each of your situations, the intent is to take a life. Situation 1 involves legitimate defense but the others involve either innocents or persons who otherwise present no current risk of harm to be defended from.

 

[Tyrion]

Legitimate defense. This is not at issue.

I have seen differing opinions on this board. You take the life of the terrorist - it was called “murder” before. It was stated in the unrealistic (time travel ) example that taking the life is unacceptable even if one would save 100,000 people. It is nice to see that you have a differing opinion.

Murder. You cannot know for certain that he would be tortured.

Don’t be so naive. You know for certain that he would be tortured and eventually killed. And again you use the word “murder”, which is incorrect. In the army it is definitely not prohibited to perform a mercy killing, so the action is lawful.

Murder. It may be that she could have been saved with medical intervention. (I only saw that film once, about twenty years ago so I don’t recal the particulars of her wounds, but even if they were objectively fatal, euthanasia is still immoral. See below)

But leaving her to be gnawed to death by rats would be “moral”. On the other hand, giving a quick and clean way out to an enemy (who even begs for it!) you call “immoral”. I am constantly amazed by the “ethics” you propose.

Euthanasia is morally equivalent to murder. It is permissible to apply enough sedative to keep such a relative unconscious but not a known fatal dose.

Only in those cases where euthanasia is illegal.

Interestingly, morphine is known to be fatal in high amounts but the particular dose varies from person to person. The relative would be allowed to increase morphine intake in moderate amounts to attempt to control the pain. This is not suicide since she would only be trying to manage the pain, not terminate her life.

It is reality that beyond a certain point pain cannot be managed any more. The only viable option is to administer an overdose. It is humane and compassionate to do it for a pet, but not for a human being. Unbelievable.

In each of your situations, the intent is to take a life. Situation 1 involves legitimate defense but the others involve either innocents or persons who otherwise present no current risk of harm to be defended from.

Yes, and sometimes it can be justified. One justification is to defend others.