Acceptable Risk to Life?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MysticMissMisty
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
GEddie said:
Is there a particular reason why you focus on sailing?

The Bible, remember, was given to the Jews. Biblical Jews were not a seagoing nation. In fact, they feared to live along the sea, never mind traveling across it. In Biblical times, important cities were all inland.

Yet though they avoided the sea, life was not safe. The merchant of Jericho was beaten and left for dead. People were killed by wild animals while walking on land. One could get a sudden illness and die (Lazarus) or die while out in the field (possibly by heat stroke?) (the widow’s son in Elisha’s times), or die while sleeping (the man with the silos in our LORD’s parable).

Life was uncertain at all times then, as it is now.

For those who did take to the sea, the potential reward surpassed the risk of death, to their mind, probably more than the risk/reward in farming, etc.

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
The Jews were (apparently) mandated to teach their sons three things: Torah, a trade, and how to swim.
 
Remember, Israel lies along the Asian trade route. “Luxury goods” were even more available by land than by sea. Yet travel on land was often more dangerous, due to desert conditions, banditry, local warfare, etc, than sailing.

Much more recently, pilgrims to Santiago de Compostela in Spain would travel by sea if they had the means, as this was considered less hazardous than walking the trail across Europe.

ICXC NIKA
 
GEddie said:
For those who did take to the sea, the potential reward surpassed the risk of death, to their mind, probably more than the risk/reward in farming, etc.

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
But, would God have considered such a mindset justifiable?

Is reward outweighing risk a general principle to go by when making more modern decisions, even when seeking mere enjoyment?

The reasons I focus so much on the sailing example is because of my particular interest in the classical world. Also, making it a career as I do, I am interested in knowing how to approach my understanding of life in antiquity from a Christian/Catholic perspective. For instance, am I to give positive assent to a civilization’s pursuit of sea trade for gain/profit? (I know this seems a little abstract, but, after all, aren’t we to live all aspects of our lives to God?)
 
St_Francis said:
The Jews were (apparently) mandated to teach their sons three things: Torah, a trade, and how to swim.
Click to expand...
:)🙂 didn’t know that

In Biblical Israel, except along Galilee and the Jordan, not so easily done.

ICXC NIKA
 
I guess, as far as the ancient sailing example is concerned, the question would be: Would the risk to life inherent in this occupation have been considered reasonable/acceptable by Christian standards? I mean, I suppose, even after the Roman Empire’s Christianization, goods, even “luxury” ones, were still transported via this method and that could be some evidence that such risk was acceptable, at least given the current state of sailing/knowledge of the seas.

Thoughts?
 
Beryllos said:
Keep it in perspective. Some things are worse than death.
Click to expand...
“Whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.”

I think that IS the answer to Misty’s question. If you risk your life for the sake of others or God, that is an acceptable risk. However, just wantonly risking your life for no reason at all, just for the thrill of it, is unacceptable.
 
This reminds me of a FB video I saw the other day, this guy, I believe he was in Dubai, at at very tall skyscraper, at the top of the building, it had these little 2ft x 2ft ledges, spaced about 3ft apart…this idiot was jumping from one to another, then he would come back, he had no harness on, no parachute!! I could barely watch it, this was at least 100 stories up!!

I dont even like being up 8ft on a ladder! Something tells me if someone were to die while doing something stupid like this, or other daredevil type stunts, God would probably call it foolish or something along the lines of not respecting life.
 
MysticMissMisty, after reviewing this thread, I see that no one has answered your questions about how the ancients understood and accepted the risks of sea trade. Rather, we have addressed more general questions about the morality of risks, but this has missed the mark, or so it seems because you keep asking.

The difficulty (with this thread) may be due to different assumptions about the value of life. Your questions seem to be based on the assumption that living is measured by the length of one’s life. The answers seem to come from the alternative view that living is measured by the things which take place within a lifetime.

If you want a Christian teaching, how about Matthew 25:14-30, the Parable of the Talents? Our life is on loan from God. How are we going to invest it? How are we going to “spend” it? If we preserve our life, avoid risk, cling to what is familiar and safe, we miss opportunities to fully live; we may live a long and wasted life. The parable suggests that when God calls back our loan, he will judge us by the attention we paid to the content of our lives and not its span.
 
CHRISTINE77 said:
“Whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.”

I think that IS the answer to Misty’s question. If you risk your life for the sake of others or God, that is an acceptable risk. However, just wantonly risking your life for no reason at all, just for the thrill of it, is unacceptable.
Click to expand...
While that sounds good on the face of it, even this needs, IMNAAHO to be nuanced somewhat:

By this standard, pursuits like skydiving, Everest climbing or even downhill skiing – all substantially bodily-dangerous pursuits, and having no purpose beyond thrill or adventure seeking-- would be condemned; yet the Church **has never discouraged **participation in such activities.

ICXC NIKA
 
Methinks no one has addressed the specific issue of sea travel in the ancient world because no-one now can do it justice.

A priori, the ancient world was not a unity. The Greeks were not the Romans were not the Phoenicians were not Biblical Israel, etc. Each of these peoples had their own cultural expectations.

Secondly, we have no way of quantifying the risks, say, of travelling X distance in a Roman trireme, versus walking the same distance or leading an overland caravan; or staying put and growing one’s own food, etc. No life is without risk even lying in bed.

Finally, risk is highly subjective. Five years ago, I visited the Holy Land. I live in NA, so the journey involved a finite physical risk. I decided (easily) that walking where our LORD once did was worth it. Someone else might have decided that the double Atlantic crossing would not be worth the risk. Etc.

ICXC NIKA.
 
Beryllos said:
MysticMissMisty, after reviewing this thread, I see that no one has answered your questions about how the ancients understood and accepted the risks of sea trade. Rather, we have addressed more general questions about the morality of risks, but this has missed the mark, or so it seems because you keep asking.

The difficulty (with this thread) may be due to different assumptions about the value of life. Your questions seem to be based on the assumption that living is measured by the length of one’s life. The answers seem to come from the alternative view that living is measured by the things which take place within a lifetime.

If you want a Christian teaching, how about Matthew 25:14-30, the Parable of the Talents? Our life is on loan from God. How are we going to invest it? How are we going to “spend” it? If we preserve our life, avoid risk, cling to what is familiar and safe, we miss opportunities to fully live; we may live a long and wasted life. The parable suggests that when God calls back our loan, he will judge us by the attention we paid to the content of our lives and not its span.
Click to expand...
Actually, I appreciate the generalities, as my own mind tends often to work from specific questions back to their general underpinnings. I think the issue at play here is: value of activity vs. value of life, that is, in God’s Estimation, as assessed insofar as level of risk is concerned. We might say, value of acquiaition of resources from other lands vs. value of a human life (which may, especially in ancient times, have been more likely to be preserved had men stayed in their own lands); value of the thrill of speed/adventure vs. value of a human life (which may be lost due to the risks inherent in such adventures). Heck, value of the pleasures that come from cell phone use vs. value of a human life (which may be lost to cancer). So, the question becomes, what level of risk is acceptable in the cases we have mentioned above? In other cases?

If these aren’t the issues at play, perhaps I am very much missing something. Sincerely, if I am, I would like to know what I am missing.

As far as one culture differing as, of course, it does, from another, of course we can’t know every little variable involved regarding this issue, especially since we’re looking back so far. I’m asking the question in regard to what we can know from our various sources/methods.

So, I ask again, would the risks inherent in seafaring be acceptable on God’s eyes? Would the risks of various kinds of adventure-seeking? Would the risks (known and unknown) in using cell phones?
 
GEddie said:
Methinks no one has addressed the specific issue of sea travel in the ancient world because no-one now can do it justice.

A priori, the ancient world was not a unity. The Greeks were not the Romans were not the Phoenicians were not Biblical Israel, etc. Each of these peoples had their own cultural expectations.

Secondly, we have no way of quantifying the risks, say, of travelling X distance in a Roman trireme, versus walking the same distance or leading an overland caravan; or staying put and growing one’s own food, etc. No life is without risk even lying in bed.

Finally, risk is highly subjective. Five years ago, I visited the Holy Land. I live in NA, so the journey involved a finite physical risk. I decided (easily) that walking where our LORD once did was worth it. Someone else might have decided that the double Atlantic crossing would not be worth the risk. Etc.

ICXC NIKA.
Click to expand...
(I addressed your first points in the previous post, as, for some reason, I was thinking B. made them and didn’t bother to actually read the quote I used… :o

As to your last point. Your going to the Holy Land (while, I must say, this was a most noble endeavor) arguably does not compare to the examples with which we are dealing here in that, again, it is arguably far more noble/edifying/spiritually beneficial. Here, I’m talking, buying and selling, adventure-seeking, cell-phone using (whaever general categorization that fits into…). So, yes, while the risks inherent in your pilgrimage, I agree, were well worth it, especially if your motivations were spiritual in nature, I am questioning the risks inherent in the activities I listed above.
 
MysticMissMisty said:
Actually, I appreciate the generalities, as my own mind tends often to work from specific questions back to their general underpinnings. I think the issue at play here is: value of activity vs. value of life, that is, in God’s Estimation, as assessed insofar as level of risk is concerned. We might say, value of acquiaition of resources from other lands vs. value of a human life (which may, especially in ancient times, have been more likely to be preserved had men stayed in their own lands); value of the thrill of speed/adventure vs. value of a human life (which may be lost due to the risks inherent in such adventures). Heck, value of the pleasures that come from cell phone use vs. value of a human life (which may be lost to cancer). So, the question becomes, what level of risk is acceptable in the cases we have mentioned above? In other cases?

If these aren’t the issues at play, perhaps I am very much missing something. Sincerely, if I am, I would like to know what I am missing.

As far as one culture differing as, of course, it does, from another, of course we can’t know every little variable involved regarding this issue, especially since we’re looking back so far. I’m asking the question in regard to what we can know from our various sources/methods.

So, I ask again, would the risks inherent in seafaring be acceptable on God’s eyes? Would the risks of various kinds of adventure-seeking? Would the risks (known and unknown) in using cell phones?
Click to expand...
I think when the Church considers the value of life, it is more in terms of our responsibilities to others rather than to preserving our own lives (short of suicide).

But in Western culture, the materialist thinks our lives here are all we have, so we must work hard to preserve our own lives, and help others to do the same (because otherwise it wouldn’t be fair).

In ancient times, there were dangers everywhere. I don’t think people thought in terms of, hmmm, if I take this ship job, I am more likely to die in a shipwreck, maybe this would be imprudent. I don’t think people thought this because people died on land at least almost as easily, and shipwrecks weren’t *that *likely–they had a good grasp of weather prediction, they stayed within sight of the land, etc.
 
GEddie said:
While that sounds good on the face of it, even this needs, IMNAAHO to be nuanced somewhat:

By this standard, pursuits like skydiving, Everest climbing or even downhill skiing – all substantially bodily-dangerous pursuits, and having no purpose beyond thrill or adventure seeking-- would be condemned; yet the Church **has never discouraged **participation in such activities.

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
23And He was saying to them all, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me. 24"For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake, he is the one who will save it. 25"For what is a man profited if he gains the whole world, and loses or forfeits himself?…

It’s not so much taking risks, but taking them for the wrong reasons.
 
Ok, I asked him.

Essentially, while we are not to risk our life unnecessarily, what that means is a prudential judgement. The Church has never pronounced on the admissibility of specific activities.

Considering that the great exploratory voyages left from Catholic countries, daring far greater dangers than those faced by traders in our LORD’s day; and the conquistadors sailed with the Cross on their headsails, it seems that the Church never discouraged travel by sea.

ICXC NIKA
 
GEddie said:
Ok, I asked him.

Essentially, while we are not to risk our life unnecessarily, what that means is a prudential judgement. The Church has never pronounced on the admissibility of specific activities.
Click to expand...
“Unnecessarily” is a difficult word. I mean, technically, it isn’t a “requirement” for our quality of life to trad with other nations, is it? Or, at least, it arguably used to be so more than it is now. So, could not sea trade be argued to be “unnecessary”, at least trade in less “necessary” items such as luxury items as jewelry, perfumes, etc.? To me, “necessary” could mean something as limited as “required to sustain life” and nothing more than that and “unnecessary” could mean anything “not absolutely required to sustain life”. Or, am I misunderstanding the Church’s use of the word “necessary”…?

Is perhaps the word here being translated/rendered “necessary” coming from the Latin “utilis” which has more of the sense of “to some useful purpose”, its opposite being “inutilis”? (I know that the Catechism uses this term when referring to our use of animals and this, too, has caused some confusion for Catholics who believe the Church, because animals are not to be killed “unnecessarily”, that we should all be vegetarians because, they argue, we can get sources of protein from other places.) Does someone perhaps have a reference to portions(s) of the Catechism that address risk to life? To me, translations of “necessary” and “unnecessary” for these words are really not quite hitting the mark and have done much to cause confusion, tbh.
 
Here’s another scenario related to this subject for you: Can living in certain places be considered a sin due to an increased risk to life?
  1. Especially today, when we don’t all need to live close to the water to sustain our lives, is living close to the water’s edge, say, for the beauty of the area, a sin because doing so leads to increased risk to life due to the possibility of flooding?
  2. Is living in an area of volcanic activity such as the Big Island in Hawai’i or on Sicily near Mt. Aetna or under the shadow of Mt. Vesuvius simply because of the beauty of these places to be considered sinful because oft he increased risk of volcanic eruptions that could result in loss of life? What about living on land even formed by previous volcanic activity because there is some risk of such areas at some point coming out of their dormancy? (I’m thinking again of Hawai’i and, specifically, those who live in the crater of Diamond Head on O’ahu. …Yes, there are people who liver there. I’ve seen it myself.)
  3. Is living in an area more prone to earthquakes sinful because of risk (albeit low) of loss of life?
In any of these scenarios, are the beauty of a place, the desire to not have to relocate or the love of the community built in these places good enough reasons to risk one’s life in the eyes of the Church?

Obviously, I know that, if we were to avoid all these places, mankind (or, at least, Christians) would likely have to do mass re-location and the world could get a lot more crowded. Indeed, whole nations would have to be uprooted? So, is living in one place listed above acceptable while living in another is not? Or, would God consider any such thing too impractical and, thus, not necessary?

Or, rather, is it acceptable to live in any of these places? If so, why, as it seems we are putting unnecessary risk on our lives? Are the “risk to life” statements of the Church grounded in any way on the “amount” of risk versus “any risk at all”? Or, rather, if there is “any” unnecessary risk to life, is any such risk to be avoided?
 
MysticMissMisty said:
Here’s another scenario related to this subject for you: Can living in certain places be considered a sin due to an increased risk to life?
  1. Especially today, when we don’t all need to live close to the water to sustain our lives, is living close to the water’s edge, say, for the beauty of the area, a sin because doing so leads to increased risk to life due to the possibility of flooding?
  2. Is living in an area of volcanic activity such as the Big Island in Hawai’i or on Sicily near Mt. Aetna or under the shadow of Mt. Vesuvius simply because of the beauty of these places to be considered sinful because oft he increased risk of volcanic eruptions that could result in loss of life? What about living on land even formed by previous volcanic activity because there is some risk of such areas at some point coming out of their dormancy? (I’m thinking again of Hawai’i and, specifically, those who live in the crater of Diamond Head on O’ahu. …Yes, there are people who liver there. I’ve seen it myself.)
  3. Is living in an area more prone to earthquakes sinful because of risk (albeit low) of loss of life?
In any of these scenarios, are the beauty of a place, the desire to not have to relocate or the love of the community built in these places good enough reasons to risk one’s life in the eyes of the Church?

Obviously, I know that, if we were to avoid all these places, mankind (or, at least, Christians) would likely have to do mass re-location and the world could get a lot more crowded. Indeed, whole nations would have to be uprooted? So, is living in one place listed above acceptable while living in another is not? Or, would God consider any such thing too impractical and, thus, not necessary?

Or, rather, is it acceptable to live in any of these places? If so, why, as it seems we are putting unnecessary risk on our lives? Are the “risk to life” statements of the Church grounded in any way on the “amount” of risk versus “any risk at all”? Or, rather, if there is “any” unnecessary risk to life, is any such risk to be avoided?
Click to expand...
Most people who live in a particular area did not choose to live there. They were born there or their job took them there. People who can choose where to live are very lucky indeed.

Just by living each day we are putting ourselves at risk of death. You can’t live in a bubble.

That is the reason for faith. We have faith that God will protect us, now and at the hour of our death.
 
The great adventure of our human life will end with eyes rolled back in head in any case.

There is no secure place to live; our own bodies are not finally secure.

As I said in another thread, concerning earthquake dangers in the PNW of NA: Florida has no earthquakes, yet a man died there when a sinkhole opened under his sleeping body.

Assuming one has freedom in where to live and the means to change location at will, the deciding factor should not be the risk of dying by whatever means, but the ability to maximize living one’s life in that location.

IMNAAHO

ICXC NIKA
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top