Choose who lives

[phil8888]

My friend asked me an interesting question. She said in a theoretical situation, 3 groups of people were slated to be killed by a natural disaster.

1. A close friend
2. 250 people at your local airport
3. 25,000 people in Pakistan (whom you don’t know).

You can save one group, but only one. Which do you save?
I was thinking about this a lot. After consideration, I realized that those 25,000 people or 250 were potentially 250 or 25,000 close friends to someone, so it would be selfish to save just my close friend. Plus, even if they were no one’s friend, it is better to save 100 people than 1.

But I was wondering if was moral to choose any group. I remembered the fat man in a cave dilemma, where in order to save a group of people you’d have to kill a fat man who was blocking their exit. This would be morally wrong, since you cannot do an evil so that good may come of it. However, in this new example, no evil is being done. The only evil is that these people will be killed, but that will happen regardless. You can save some of these people, so the larger group would be better, in my opinion. Please let me know if you believe my reasoning is morally sound.

Thanks.

 

[teachccd]

You save who you can. God never requires for us to take on more than we can handle. Since the reason for the ability to save only one group is lacking, I would have to say that you would save the one group that is most available to save. You are morally obligated to save all of the groups if you can but since there must be a reason why you would not be able to save the other two then save the group that you can…teachccd

 

[phil8888]

You save who you can. God never requires for us to take on more than we can handle. Since the reason for the ability to save only one group is lacking, I would have to say that you would save the one group that is most available to save. You are morally obligated to save all of the groups if you can but since there must be a reason why you would not be able to save the other two then save the group that you can…teachccd

The assumption in this case is that each group can be saved just as easily as the others. you can choose any of the 3 groups. which do you think?

 

[thistle]

The assumption in this case is that each group can be saved just as easily as the others. you can choose any of the 3 groups. which do you think?

A group at your local airport is in a different country from the group in Pakistan so how could a person just as easily save one or the other?? Is the person capable of bilocation?

 

[phil8888]

A group at your local airport is in a different country from the group in Pakistan so how could a person just as easily save one or the other?? Is the person capable of bilocation?

I think with these moral questions, it is important to take them at face value. we are making assumptions so that we can get at a deeper meaning. just assume that each option is just as possible.

 

[jkarp]

My friend asked me an interesting question. She said in a theoretical situation, 3 groups of people were slated to be killed by a natural disaster.

1. A close friend
2. 250 people at your local airport
3. 25,000 people in Pakistan (whom you don’t know).

You can save one group, but only one. Which do you save?
I was thinking about this a lot. After consideration, I realized that those 25,000 people or 250 were potentially 250 or 25,000 close friends to someone, so it would be selfish to save just my close friend. Plus, even if they were no one’s friend, it is better to save 100 people than 1.

But I was wondering if was moral to choose any group. I remembered the fat man in a cave dilemma, where in order to save a group of people you’d have to kill a fat man who was blocking their exit. This would be morally wrong, since you cannot do an evil so that good may come of it. However, in this new example, no evil is being done. The only evil is that these people will be killed, but that will happen regardless. You can save some of these people, so the larger group would be better, in my opinion. Please let me know if you believe my reasoning is morally sound.

Thanks.

I would recruit my close friend to help me recruit the 250 people at the airport to help save the people in Pakistan.

 

[phil8888]

I would recruit my close friend to help me recruit the 250 people at the airport to help save the people in Pakistan.

I love all these non-definitive and non-committal answers lol

 

[Snerticus]

I just came across this in the “Ask an Apologist” section. This might throw a kink in your scenario because by saving someone, you are bringing about the death of another (or others). Now try and decide!

CCC 2296 ….It is furthermore morally inadmissible directly to bring about the disabling mutilation or death of a human being, even in order to delay the death of other persons.

Maybe you should not try and save anyone, and leave it to God’s grace and providence.

I’m not endorsing this as a solution, but it’s just a thought…

 

[phil8888]

I just came across this in the “Ask an Apologist” section. This might throw a kink in your scenario because by saving someone, you are bringing about the death of another (or others). Now try and decide!

Maybe you should not try and save anyone, and leave it to God’s grace and providence.

I’m not endorsing this as a solution, but it’s just a thought…

that’s a different situation. I agree that you cannot bring about the death of one person to save others, however that is not the case here. I am not killing someone so that others may live. If 3 people were drowning, but you could only save 1, then you would be obligated to save that one, not just stand by. That’s the same in this case.

 

[Snerticus]

that’s a different situation. I agree that you cannot bring about the death of one person to save others, however that is not the case here. I am not killing someone so that others may live. If 3 people were drowning, but you could only save 1, then you would be obligated to save that one, not just stand by. That’s the same in this case.

Ahhh, but your scenarios specifically says

“…3 groups of people were slated to be killed by a natural disaster… You can save one group, but only one. Which do you save?”

So 1) you know that if you save only one group, others will die, so therefore 2) by saving that group, you are knowingly “directly bringing about the death of the other two groups”. That’s why I say probably not doing anything would be best.

Besides, your scenario above is actually different because all three are drowning and you are trying to save as many as possible, even all three if you could. Of course you can’t so you save the first one you help and by the time you get to the others it is too late. In your mind it may be possible to save all of them.

Your original scenario is different. In your mind you know you can only save one and therefore must choose who will die. Unless you try and help the group closest to you, which would be the most prudent. If that’s the answer you’re looking for then use common sense. But if you had to actually choose and could save any of the groups equally, then I say pray, pray and then pray some more that all be saved, becuase you know by choosing one the others are doomed.

CCC 2296 ….It is furthermore morally inadmissible directly to bring about the … death of a human being, even in order to delay the death of other persons.

Again, you know you would be bringing about the death of the others by saving the one (group or individual).

This is a tough one.

 

[phil8888]

Ahhh, but your scenarios specifically says So 1) you know that if you save only one group, others will die, so therefore 2) by saving that group, you are knowingly “directly bringing about the death of the other two groups”. That’s why I say probably not doing anything would be best.

Besides, your scenario above is actually different because all three are drowning and you are trying to save as many as possible, even all three if you could. Of course you can’t so you save the first one you help and by the time you get to the others it is too late. In your mind it may be possible to save all of them.

Your original scenario is different. In your mind you know you can only save one and therefore must choose who will die. Unless you try and help the group closest to you, which would be the most prudent. If that’s the answer you’re looking for then use common sense. But if you had to actually choose and could save any of the groups equally, then I say pray, pray and then pray some more that all be saved, becuase you know by choosing one the others are doomed.

Again, you know you would be bringing about the death of the others by saving the one (group or individual).

This is a tough one.

ok, I think you’re making this unnecessarily complicated. there are 3 groups slated to die. if you do nothing they will all die. you have enough human ability to save one of them. it’s like if there were 3 buttons, one in each room. it takes 30 seconds to go to a room and press a button. in 35 seconds all will die. if you press the button that group will live. if you stand there and do nothing, all will die. your human maximum to save is 1 group. it’s better to save one group than none. but just because you save one group, you are not killing the other group. they are not connected in that way.

 

[thistle]

If you have to choose between saving your daughter or three strangers you would choose your daughter as our first responsibility is to our family. Only then would you try to save the others.

 

[Snerticus]

ok, I think you’re making this unnecessarily complicated. there are 3 groups slated to die. if you do nothing they will all die. you have enough human ability to save one of them. it’s like if there were 3 buttons, one in each room. it takes 30 seconds to go to a room and press a button. in 35 seconds all will die. if you press the button that group will live. if you stand there and do nothing, all will die. your human maximum to save is 1 group. it’s better to save one group than none. but just because you save one group, you are not killing the other group. they are not connected in that way.

I honestly can’t answer that question, then. You see, I tend to overthink things (if you didn’t noice already! ). Moral theology tells me that I have to choose death for two groups. That in itself is wrong. So I guess I would pray to God that He physically lift my finger to the one He wants me to. Either that, or try to press all three at the same time.

Because honestly, it’s a hopeless situation. Suppose your friend is going to be the instigator of world peace, but you chose to dispose of him rather than the 25,000. I mean, there’s just too much to consider. Common sense says save the most, but I don’t know what God has planned for the survivor(s) or the damned (to death, that is… not Hell).

I’m glad there’s no such scenario in real life.

 

[Paladin_V]

Ahhh, but your scenarios specifically says So 1) you know that if you save only one group, others will die, so therefore 2) by saving that group, you are knowingly “directly bringing about the death of the other two groups”. That’s why I say probably not doing anything would be best.

Well, you would certainly not be directly bringing about the death of another group, that is to say, you are not the cause, direct or indirect. You wouldn’t be the indirect cause either; they are already in harms way. The only wrong thing here is precisely to not do anything. Since no one human is any more “valuable” than another, I would think you couldn’t be blamed for choosing any one group over another, although it would certainly be laudatory to choose the largest group at your own personal sacrifice (and your friend’s of course).

The only action that would be wrong would be to do nothing, or to place someone in the way of the natural disaster in attempt to save a group (in which case your action would have the primary effect of the death of that person, which is wrong).

The key to answering these moral dilemmas is to look at the following things:

direct cause and indirect cause
primary effect and secondary effect

The secondary effect principle is used when answering the question about when a baby threatens the life of the mother.

 

[phil8888]

Well, you would certainly not be directly bringing about the death of another group, that is to say, you are not the cause, direct or indirect. You wouldn’t be the indirect cause either; they are already in harms way. The only wrong thing here is precisely to not do anything. Since no one human is any more “valuable” than another, I would think you couldn’t be blamed for choosing any one group over another, although it would certainly be laudatory to choose the largest group at your own personal sacrifice (and your friend’s of course).

The only action that would be wrong would be to do nothing, or to place someone in the way of the natural disaster in attempt to save a group (in which case your action would have the primary effect of the death of that person, which is wrong).

The key to answering these moral dilemmas is to look at the following things:

direct cause and indirect cause
primary effect and secondary effect

The secondary effect principle is used when answering the question about when a baby threatens the life of the mother.

Good answer! (so were the other ones). Just out of curiosity, what is the correct thing to do in the baby threatening the mother case? I’m not sure the exact situation you are talking about. I guess if the baby threatens the life of the mother, but the baby will survive, then it’s best to do nothing, rather than kill the baby. but with situations where the baby will die and the mother will too, then in order to save the mother’s life, the child could as an unintended double effect be killed… what is the correct answer?

 

[Paladin_V]

Good answer! (so were the other ones). Just out of curiosity, what is the correct thing to do in the baby threatening the mother case? I’m not sure the exact situation you are talking about. I guess if the baby threatens the life of the mother, but the baby will survive, then it’s best to do nothing, rather than kill the baby. but with situations where the baby will die and the mother will too, then in order to save the mother’s life, the child could as an unintended double effect be killed… what is the correct answer?

Thanks!

I posted this on another thread…

…in general the Church allows a procedure to be performed on the mother with the intent of saving her life even if the procedure has the secondary effect of killing the child. The intent of the procedure cannot be to kill the child. What readily comes to mind is ectopic pregnancy. It is clear that secondary effect is only to be invoked in the gravest of circumstances, in which the mother faces almost certain death.

So with ectopic pregnancy, it is okay to remove the section of fallopian tube with the child in it, as long as it is intended to save the mother’s life (that is, if it wasn’t removed, there would be a serious threat to the mother’s life). Of course, one has to be careful here… secondary effect can be tricky and if it is going to be invoked it should be done with careful deliberation and discernment (if possible).

Hope that helps!

 

[bilop]

Good answer! (so were the other ones). Just out of curiosity, what is the correct thing to do in the baby threatening the mother case? I’m not sure the exact situation you are talking about. I guess if the baby threatens the life of the mother, but the baby will survive, then it’s best to do nothing, rather than kill the baby. but with situations where the baby will die and the mother will too, then in order to save the mother’s life, the child could as an unintended double effect be killed… what is the correct answer?

A pregnant woman may undergo medical treatment to save her life that will have the unintended side effect to killing her unborn baby (e.g. removing a fallopian tube with an ectopic pregnancy or chemo to fight cancer).

She may not undergo a procedure to directly kill the child (abortion) even if the child is certain to die.

God Bless

 

[Newbie2]

Well, you would certainly not be directly bringing about the death of another group, that is to say, you are not the cause, direct or indirect. You wouldn’t be the indirect cause either; they are already in harms way. The only wrong thing here is precisely to not do anything. Since no one human is any more “valuable” than another, I would think you couldn’t be blamed for choosing any one group over another, although it would certainly be laudatory to choose the largest group at your own personal sacrifice (and your friend’s of course).

The only action that would be wrong would be to do nothing, or to place someone in the way of the natural disaster in attempt to save a group (in which case your action would have the primary effect of the death of that person, which is wrong).

The key to answering these moral dilemmas is to look at the following things:

direct cause and indirect cause
primary effect and secondary effect

Quite correct.

It would be an entirely different scenario if you were to, say, made to press two of three buttons, which would blow up the whole group of people represented by that button, and the group represented by the button you did not push would be spared.