A question raised in my bible study

[may_by_the_bay]

I decided I WOULD go ahead and make this its own thread.

We were discussing the difference between self sacrifice and suicide, and the areas where suicide becomes less culpable an action and its severity of sin diminished. Well, we came upon a hypothetical situation.

What of someone who is immenently dying (as in, car accident, stab wound, something quickly fatal, and not a case of Euthenasia like in cancer or something) where someone knows factually, or at least to the full extent of human logic, that they are not going to survive. They are absolutely convinced, sue to the logical outcome of their circumstances, that they will not live. To hasten their death for the survival of another, what would that be?

The best example we could think of is hikers or campers who become injured and lost in the wilderness. One is extremely hurt, and suffering from infection, while the other is better off. They have very little food and water, and it’s been days with no signs of rescue. What moral culpability would the dying hiker face if he or she hastened to be what they 100% believed to be their imminent death, to provide more food, water, and another day of hope of rescue for the other? Keeping in mind, they truly thought for sure they would be dead soon, too soon for rescue.

None of us, our priest included, could decide. Do you think he would be guilty of suicide, or sacrifice? If suicide, do you think his will to allow his partner more time to be rescued and live at least dimished his culpability?

 

[Trishie]

I would trust, and keep sharing until we ran out, and I’d at least try to find anything that would serve as food or would in any way be helpful to the survival of both.
I wouldn’t just sit there waiting for us both to die.
If the person still died, at least I would have done all I could for them.
Faith, hope, and love must all continue even in such a circumstance.

 

[Cristiano]

There is a big difference between choosing to kill yourself and accepting death as a highly probable consequence of an action. In one case you reject life, in the other you accept the probability that you might loose your life but you do not reject your life.

 

[may_by_the_bay]

…Neither one of you answered my question

 

[Trishie]

Yes it does, because what I’m saying is I wouldn’t even consider your hypothetical question as worthy of applying to a person beside me who is terribly injured and may be dying. As long as they could manage to swallow I’d share with them what I have. I feel very strongly about this. The consequences are the consequences, but the other person would be given an equal share as long as they could manage…and as I said, faith, hope, love.
There is never any excuse for withdrawing love from the other person. And one must hope help with come soon, and trust in God.
I have answered your question in a real way, and that’s all that matters.
Euthanasia and suicide don’t come into it. I allow neither in this case. I am simply living as I believe whatever the consequences.
And I have answered it by decision and action not theory which is all that counts.

 

[may_by_the_bay]

I wasn’t asking about what YOU would do. I’m asking about the situation. The hypothetical YOU is not involved in it. YOU might not do it, but someone else might.

 

[Cristiano]

To answer your question it is not suicide.

 

[another_seeker]

I do think it is still suicide. However, I will focus on your question about culpability, because I think it would apply somewhat in this case.

There are MANY things that can and do limit someones culpability in the case of suicide. The persons emotional security and stability, and extreme outside stressors do not make suicide RIGHT, but it can offer an explanation as to why that person chose it. The belief, wholehearted, that they are dying, and the belief that their death could bring the salvation of another, while still suicide and not self sacrifice, could very much limit their culpability, I would think.

 

[PJM]

=may by the bay;9269125]I decided I WOULD go ahead and make this its own thread.

We were discussing the difference between self sacrifice and suicide, and the areas where suicide becomes less culpable an action and its severity of sin diminished. Well, we came upon a hypothetical situation.

What of someone who is immenently dying (as in, car accident, stab wound, something quickly fatal, and not a case of Euthenasia like in cancer or something) where someone knows factually, or at least to the full extent of human logic, that they are not going to survive. They are absolutely convinced, sue to the logical outcome of their circumstances, that they will not live. To hasten their death for the survival of another, what would that be?

The best example we could think of is hikers or campers who become injured and lost in the wilderness. One is extremely hurt, and suffering from infection, while the other is better off. They have very little food and water, and it’s been days with no signs of rescue. What moral culpability would the dying hiker face if he or she hastened to be what they 100% believed to be their imminent death, to provide more food, water, and another day of hope of rescue for the other? Keeping in mind, they truly thought for sure they would be dead soon, too soon for rescue.

None of us, our priest included, could decide. Do you think he would be guilty of suicide, or sacrifice? If suicide, do you think his will to allow his partner more time to be rescued and live at least dimished his culpability?

Please understand this is ONLY My personal opinion:

It seems to me that “Motive” becomes the determining factor. Given the camper story as told The MOTIVE seems to be based in charity; and thus a good thing. BUT Only God can make the call stick.

 

[Armyvet007]

I decided I WOULD go ahead and make this its own thread.

We were discussing the difference between self sacrifice and suicide, and the areas where suicide becomes less culpable an action and its severity of sin diminished. Well, we came upon a hypothetical situation.

What of someone who is immenently dying (as in, car accident, stab wound, something quickly fatal, and not a case of Euthenasia like in cancer or something) where someone knows factually, or at least to the full extent of human logic, that they are not going to survive. They are absolutely convinced, sue to the logical outcome of their circumstances, that they will not live. To hasten their death for the survival of another, what would that be?

The best example we could think of is hikers or campers who become injured and lost in the wilderness. One is extremely hurt, and suffering from infection, while the other is better off. They have very little food and water, and it’s been days with no signs of rescue. What moral culpability would the dying hiker face if he or she hastened to be what they 100% believed to be their imminent death, to provide more food, water, and another day of hope of rescue for the other? Keeping in mind, they truly thought for sure they would be dead soon, too soon for rescue.

None of us, our priest included, could decide. Do you think he would be guilty of suicide, or sacrifice? If suicide, do you think his will to allow his partner more time to be rescued and live at least dimished his culpability?

Suicide if the injured hiker gave up his food and water in order to cause his death or cause it to happen faster.

 

[another_seeker]

Please understand this is ONLY My personal opinion:

It seems to me that “Motive” becomes the determining factor. Given the camper story as told The MOTIVE seems to be based in charity; and thus a good thing. BUT Only God can make the call stick.

While I don’t quite agree with this, because Double Effect states that the moral wrong can not be the PRIMARY source of the good (he is still willfully taking his life for a good cause) I think the motive still upholds my opinion on his or her culpability.

So many things are needed here. For example, if they were of a faith that didn’t believe suicide would even be wrong in this case, or many his faith system even taught that this sort of thing would be noble, then despite the objective morality of what he did, I would find it very difficult to hold him accountable for sin

 

[may_by_the_bay]

Thank you for your replies.

TO those answering suicide, will you please answer the second half of my question?

 

[Cristiano]

Suicide if the injured hiker gave up his food and water in order to cause his death or cause it to happen faster.

That means that if you die in a car accident it is a suicide because you took a risk that shortened your life span. Suicide is the intentional rejection of our own life.

 

[bmullins]

Sacrificing yourself to ‘feed’ the others, shows a lack of faith in God. The better answer would be for the people to pray diligently together that God will provide a way out for all of them. If that person truly is ‘dying’ from some terminal illness, then likely they will expire before the others anyway, so if it came down to cannibalism, they could simply wait till it is indeed a last resort.

 

[triumphguy]

royalnavalmuseum.org/info_sheets_lawrence_oates.htm

This situation happened in the 1902 Antarctic Expedition led by Captain Robert Falcon Scott

Capt. L.E.G. Oates: “I’m just going outside; I may be away some time.”

The expedition sailed in June 1910 on the Terra Nova, and leaving New Zealand in November reached the Ross Sea and established a base at Cape Evans on Ross Island, in January 1911. In November 1911, Oates formed part of the sledging party under Scott, which set out for the South Pole. The South Pole was reached on the 18th January 1912, after an arduous journey, thirty-four days after Roald Amundsen had planted the Norwegian flag there. The return journey was begun the same day, temperatures were extremely low and weather conditions were adverse. Oates showed signs of feeling the cold severely, but the party made good progress to the Beardmore Glacier. On the 17th February, Petty Officer Evans was the first to succumb to the cold, and died. The four remaining men in the party continued to the next depot, but travelling conditions worsened and temperatures fell to below minus forty-seven degrees. Survival depended on the ability of the men to reach each depot before their food and fuel supplies were exhausted.

Oates was suffering from frost bitten feet, but he continued for as long as he was able. As travelling conditions worsened, Oates realised he could go no further and asked to be left behind, as he feared he would hold up the progress of the rest of the party, lessening their chance of survival. His request was refused, and for another day he struggled on. On the morning of March 17th , during a blizzard, Oates told Scott he was ‘just going outside and may be some time’. He was never seen again. The self sacrifice of Oates enabled the three men to push on, and there was a possibility that, in spite of their extreme exhaustion, they might cover the thirty miles to the food supplies at One Ton depot. However, a heavy blizzard held them up eleven miles from the depot, and, unable to proceed, the three men perished on the 29th March 1912.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Captain Oates is considered a hero.

 

[CaptFun]

**

I decided I WOULD go ahead and make this its own thread.

We were discussing the difference between self sacrifice and suicide, and the areas where suicide becomes less culpable an action and its severity of sin diminished. Well, we came upon a hypothetical situation**.

<Uh oh. You might be in a “Situation Ethics” Group instead of a Bible Study!

What of someone who is immenently dying (as in, car accident, stab wound, something quickly fatal, and not a case of Euthenasia like in cancer or something) where someone knows factually, or at least to the full extent of human logic, that they are not going to survive. They are absolutely convinced, sue to the logical outcome of their circumstances, that they will not live. <Boy oh boy that’s a complicated lots of stuff leading one to … well hopefully a better understanding of Jesus, Love of Neighbor and the Bible - but I will soldier on

To hasten their death for the survival of another, what would that be? < To bring it back to the Bible, the BEST case possibility would be:

JOHN 15: 12 This is my commandment: love one another as I love you.
13 No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.

The Catholic Encyclopedia’s section on Suicide DOES mention this RARE possibility with examples such as (I paraphrase): missionaries going into hostile territory, doctors or others who nurse those with deadly disease (Like Fr. Damien with the lepers in Hawaii); and firemen going into burning buildings to save others even when it is very dangerous.

THAT said, it categorized "suicides’ four ways 1) Positive and Direct; 2) Positive and Indirect 3) Negative and Direct and 4) Negative and Indirect.

There is SUCH strong language in the Church’s teaching against suicide in all but the most extreme examples that engaging the topic in a spirit of intellectual entertainment could be very dangerous to begin with.

newadvent.org/cathen/14326b.htm

---

The best example we could think of is hikers or campers who become injured and lost in the wilderness. One is extremely hurt, and suffering from infection, while the other is better off. They have very little food and water, and it’s been days with no signs of rescue. What moral culpability would the dying hiker face if he or she hastened to be what they 100% believed to be their imminent death, to provide more food, water, and another day of hope of rescue for the other? Keeping in mind, they truly thought for sure they would be dead soon, too soon for rescue.

---

Bearing in mind that the CHURCH teaches that one is obliged to try to save one’s life by providing oneself all the necessary means at his/her disposal (because life belongs to God - and is His to take not ours) ***this generous hiker ought not to be rash. *** It is best to have faith and hope and work toward the end of both parties being saved - even if logic tells him “I’m going to die”.

In this case the first thing that comes to mind is " … here, take all the provisions and try to get help (FOR US BOTH if possible)."

This simple case gets more complicated if part of the whole trip was a thrill-seeking, death defying, indulgence of feelings without regard to their obligations to others (family? children?).

None of us, our priest included, could decide. Do you think he would be guilty of suicide, or sacrifice? If suicide, do you think his will to allow his partner more time to be rescued and live at least dimished his culpability? If God inspired him to lay down his life (actually RISK it in this scenario) - that would be the exception. It’s not even suicide unless he actually dies. Since it is a hypothetical, who can know all the reasons for this action. Total assent to God’s will? Lack of faith? Sloth? Was he angry at God and lashing out in the only way he now had?

Such intellectual adventures MIGHT be good – but it looks like a necessary component of this “inquiry” would be - *at WHAT point is this (horrible sin) not wrong anymore.
*
This can lead to a spirit of moral relativity (who can know?) in a place where worship of God and a search of scriptures for how best to please him and love others would be much better

 

[Armyvet007]

That means that if you die in a car accident it is a suicide because you took a risk that shortened your life span. Suicide is the intentional rejection of our own life.

I fail to see how you came to that conclusion based on my comment. My comment had nothing to do with the increased risk of dying on the part of the injuried hiker giving up his food and water. It focused on the hiker giving those up in order to shorten/end his life. Much different then engaging in an action that increases the risk of dying. It comes down to the intent of hiker [or in your example the driver of the car].

 

[JonathonofOhio]

I decided I WOULD go ahead and make this its own thread.

We were discussing the difference between self sacrifice and suicide, and the areas where suicide becomes less culpable an action and its severity of sin diminished. Well, we came upon a hypothetical situation.

What of someone who is immenently dying (as in, car accident, stab wound, something quickly fatal, and not a case of Euthenasia like in cancer or something) where someone knows factually, or at least to the full extent of human logic, that they are not going to survive. They are absolutely convinced, sue to the logical outcome of their circumstances, that they will not live. To hasten their death for the survival of another, what would that be?

The best example we could think of is hikers or campers who become injured and lost in the wilderness. One is extremely hurt, and suffering from infection, while the other is better off. They have very little food and water, and it’s been days with no signs of rescue. What moral culpability would the dying hiker face if he or she hastened to be what they 100% believed to be their imminent death, to provide more food, water, and another day of hope of rescue for the other? Keeping in mind, they truly thought for sure they would be dead soon, too soon for rescue.

None of us, our priest included, could decide. Do you think he would be guilty of suicide, or sacrifice? If suicide, do you think his will to allow his partner more time to be rescued and live at least dimished his culpability?

Jesus tells us: “Whatever you do the least of my people, you do it to me.”

Therefore, if a person dies while sacrificing himself for the sake of another, even though both lives are lost in the end (both knowing the situation is bleak, and they probably won’t survive), it is a sacrifice. For if one sacrifices his life for another, it as if he sacrificed his life for Christ.

“Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends” - John 15:13

In a case like this, both would be obligated to each other. If the injured one laid down his life so the other could live, it is a sacrifice, but the healthier one would also be obligated to help in anyway he could to try to prevent that from becoming necessary.

That said, it’s difficult to speculate on this scenario since it requires that the two persons involved would have some perception of what is going to take place in the near future. Since human beings are not capable of seeing the future, such a scenario would be impossible.

 

[bmonk]

What of someone who is imminently dying (as in, car accident, stab wound, something quickly fatal, and not a case of Euthanasia like in cancer or something) where someone knows factually, or at least to the full extent of human logic, that they are not going to survive. They are absolutely convinced, sue to the logical outcome of their circumstances, that they will not live. To hasten their death for the survival of another, what would that be?

The best example we could think of is hikers or campers who become injured and lost in the wilderness. One is extremely hurt, and suffering from infection, while the other is better off. They have very little food and water, and it’s been days with no signs of rescue. What moral culpability would the dying hiker face if he or she hastened to be what they 100% believed to be their imminent death, to provide more food, water, and another day of hope of rescue for the other? Keeping in mind, they truly thought for sure they would be dead soon, too soon for rescue.

To decide that you are going to die in either of these cases, and to act so as to hasten that death, is to despair of the hope of life. We do not know if the next hour will see rescue. We cannot assume it will not.

And it matters. We receive life as a gift of God, and cannot turn it down, even for a brief time. It may be that your living will encourage your partner in misfortune to find more water, and be able to survive that extra few days until rescue comes. Or you may mutually encourage each other to grow spiritually, and be more ready for heaven.

On the other hand, suppose we look at the person who has been shot fatally, and is dying but not yet incapacitated. If they threw themselves in front of another bullet to protect a companion, I could not call that despair, or even hastening death, although that may be its consequence. There is still a big gap between what they do and the result: the new wound may not be fatal, and make little difference for their survival, for example.

I guess the difference would be how directly the choice shortens your life or leads to death. Choosing to hasten death directly seems wrong, even under these conditions. Acting for life, even when it has the effect of hastening death, seems right.

 

[perro_sarnoso]

I decided I WOULD go ahead and make this its own thread.

We were discussing the difference between self sacrifice and suicide, and the areas where suicide becomes less culpable an action and its severity of sin diminished. Well, we came upon a hypothetical situation.

What of someone who is immenently dying (as in, car accident, stab wound, something quickly fatal, and not a case of Euthenasia like in cancer or something) where someone knows factually, or at least to the full extent of human logic, that they are not going to survive. They are absolutely convinced, sue to the logical outcome of their circumstances, that they will not live. To hasten their death for the survival of another, what would that be?

The best example we could think of is hikers or campers who become injured and lost in the wilderness. One is extremely hurt, and suffering from infection, while the other is better off. They have very little food and water, and it’s been days with no signs of rescue. What moral culpability would the dying hiker face if he or she hastened to be what they 100% believed to be their imminent death, to provide more food, water, and another day of hope of rescue for the other? Keeping in mind, they truly thought for sure they would be dead soon, too soon for rescue.

None of us, our priest included, could decide. Do you think he would be guilty of suicide, or sacrifice? If suicide, do you think his will to allow his partner more time to be rescued and live at least dimished his culpability?

To hasten,

by what means and what interior motives? That is not in your hypothetical example. It leaves open the possibility of heroism in sacrifice. In which case it would not be suicide.

You see suicide is selfish and self-centered. A self-centeredness so closed in that it does not admit the possibility of God’s mercy. It actually rejects God’s mercy and power to forgive.

At the moment of suicide the person is too proud to admit God’s mercy and gift of forgiveness. No one will convince him/her otherwise.

So, is your hiker a hero or a proud egoist or- is he/she ignorant of these matters and does so out of ignorance? Diminished capacity due to life trauma? Ergo diminshed culpability?

It’s good for discussion but, too vague.