Allowing someone to kill you for moral reason

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheAdvocate
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TheAdvocate

Guest
We all know the Catholic principle of “The ends don’t justify the means.” Ok, I agree with this. So for example, if a sick terrorist were to say, “Slay this innocent person or I will detonate a bomb which will kill thousands in a location unknown to you,” it would be immoral to do so. The same goes for torture.

Ok, but let’s say the innocent person knew he was the chosen target and said, “I know that thousands will be killed if you don’t kill me, so I submit to this; I offer myself as a sacrifice for the thousands that will surely be killed.” Would this be morally acceptable? Why or why not? And how is this different than suicide?
 
Yes it would be morally acceptable, and it would actually be a very noble sacrifice.

EDIT: Oops! I misread your question. It would still be immoral for the person to kill the innocent victim regardless of whether or not that victim had allowed it to happen or not. It would still be murder.
 
I would capture and torture the terrorist, kill him and all his buddies.
 
Well if we declared sacrificing your life for the sake of others as equivalent to the sin of suicide it would kind of make Christianity fall apart wouldn’t it? If Jesus can do it, then certainly we can do it.
 
Well, consider the case of someone on the death penalty who accepts his punishment and allows the state to kill him/her even when they might win on mandatory appeal.

I’d argue no sin there.
 
Terrorism by its nature will never honor any deal they propose or is proposed to them. The Time Square Bomber gave a 10 min statement after his sentencing today, and he made it very clear that the goal is to destroy America and our freedom.
 
Julian0404 said:
Terrorism by its nature will never honor any deal they propose or is proposed to them. The Time Square Bomber gave a 10 min statement after his sentencing today, and he made it very clear that the goal is to destroy America and our freedom.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but that really wasn’t the point. The OP was just looking for a quick example of a hypothetical situation to represent his question.
 
**Jesus died for all of us pitiful sinners.

We should pray for the chance to die for good!!!**

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Pecatoribus!

mark
 
Barbkw said:
I would capture and torture the terrorist, kill him and all his buddies.
Click to expand...
Obviously, the torture is intended to break the terrorist’s spirit so he converts before you kill him, right?

Still sounds dubious…

But then again, I’m not American. 😃

(Should I have said that? 😊)
 
Soler said:
Obviously, the torture is intended to break the terrorist’s spirit so he converts before you kill him, right?

Still sounds dubious…

But then again, I’m not American. 😃

(Should I have said that? 😊)
Click to expand...
I’m American and I thought it was humorous, but then I don’t really agree with torture. Anyway most Americans tend to be pretty thick skinned about that kind of stuff, hard to over react to simple jokes when free speech allows people to say more or less whatever they want.
 
The terrorist is probably lying.

Read Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince and then Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows for a good hypothetical presentation of this issue.😃

I’ll try to do this without excessive spoiler-age:

After reading, answer this question: What are the moral questions surrounding Severus Snape’s action with regard to Professor Dumbledore, in the context of Catholic moral theology?
 
I don’t think there would be any sin in sacrificing yourself for the good of many others.

On a similar note, if you were in a one on one situation, for example someone broke into your house and you knew they were going to kill you. You had to make the decision to kill or be killed. If you allowed yourself to be killed and didn’t kill in self defense would that be sinful? Like for example, you didn’t want to have their blood on your hands or something.

I can’t think of anyone actually doing that b/c the survival instinct can get pretty strong…I was just wondering. 🤷
 
Whether or not killing the innocent with his permission would work is not the question. We assume that it would work in order to be able to investigate the moral principles.

I’ve actually had the same question, and think the answer is that it is not permitted. I am pretty sure it would be ok for the victim to approach the terrorist with the intent to dissuade him but with the certain knowledge that it wouldn’t work and that the victim would die. In this case it is still murder, but the terrorist would be guilty (as he would be if the victim lived, so I do not think the victim even has to be overly worried about bringing someone else closer to sin) and the victim would, I think, not be.

But for someone else to kill the victim with the victim’s permission (or for the victim to kill himself), even where the goal is not the victim’s death but rather saving the others, I’m thinking the answer is no. I do not see any exceptions or wiggle room in “Scripture specifies the prohibition contained in the fifth commandment: “Do not slay the innocent and the righteous.” The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule, and to the holiness of the Creator. The law forbidding it is universally valid: it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere.” (CCC 2261)

But it could be that I am overlooking something.
 
TheAdvocate said:
We all know the Catholic principle of “The ends don’t justify the means.” Ok, I agree with this. So for example, if a sick terrorist were to say, “Slay this innocent person or I will detonate a bomb which will kill thousands in a location unknown to you,” it would be immoral to do so. The same goes for torture.

Ok, but let’s say the innocent person knew he was the chosen target and said, “I know that thousands will be killed if you don’t kill me, so I submit to this; I offer myself as a sacrifice for the thousands that will surely be killed.” Would this be morally acceptable? Why or why not? And how is this different than suicide?
Click to expand...
The first scenario would not be acceptable because you are killing someone. You cannot be responsible for what the terrorist says he will do, you can’t know that he will honour the deal anyway and you don’t know if God, government or chance will intervene to stop him killing the thousands.

In the second scenario, it is very honourable and acceptable for you to lay down your life for the thousands but, again, you can’t know that he will honour the deal and you don’t know if God, government or chance will intervene to stop him killing the thousands.

I don’t like hypotheticals.
 
TheAdvocate said:
We all know the Catholic principle of “The ends don’t justify the means.” Ok, I agree with this. So for example, if a sick terrorist were to say, “Slay this innocent person or I will detonate a bomb which will kill thousands in a location unknown to you,” it would be immoral to do so. The same goes for torture.

Ok, but let’s say the innocent person knew he was the chosen target and said, “I know that thousands will be killed if you don’t kill me, so I submit to this; I offer myself as a sacrifice for the thousands that will surely be killed.” Would this be morally acceptable? Why or why not? And how is this different than suicide?
Click to expand...
The person would be pretty stupid to believe that by letting himself be killed it would make any difference to the terrorists. They would kill him then still kill the others!
 
PatrickSebast said:
Perhaps, but that really wasn’t the point. The OP was just looking for a quick example of a hypothetical situation to represent his question.
Click to expand...
My answer addressed his point. You cannot kill to save your life and you cannot make a deal to save your life with terrorist, hypothetically or actually.
 
thistle said:
The person would be pretty stupid to believe that by letting himself be killed it would make any difference to the terrorists. They would kill him then still kill the others!
Click to expand...
Exactly right. The assumption would have to be that the terrorist is a moral being, who will keep his promise after he kills you. Obviously the terrorist is not a moral person, or else he wouldn’t be a terrorist and wanting to kill you, or anyone else. Just the threat shows he is not a moral person. Therefore, you’d be letting an immoral person kill you, which is tantamount to suicide and his actions would constitute a murder. You’d be voluntarily participating in an immoral act.
 
I would just torture the terroirist by covering him in pigs’ blood and …
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top