Consistency in moral principles

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ioana
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

Ioana

Guest
Hi; we’ve had some recent discussions with some friends and we got into some pretty mega philosophical and abstract realms which got me realizing that my understanding of morality is not consistent. I have a scenario that seemed simple to me at first but then I realized it is maybe a bit more complicated than I first believed.

This scenario may be a bit sensitive. The physics may also be questionable but just roll with it for a while.

There are 7 soldiers. There’s a grenade. Johnny jumps on the grenade to save his friends (which leads to his death). Was what Johnny did morally right? (according to the idea that ends do not justify the means). At first glance any answer but “Yes” sounds a bit outrageous. What if Johnny pushed Sam over the grenade to save the others? He’d use an evil means (the death of somebody) to justify a good end (saving 6 people). Why is that different if it is self-sacrifice? How does double effect fit in?

Also given our principle how do we justify some events in the OT like the commandment to stone?
 
Laying down your life for your friends is the highest form of love. See John 15:3…“Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.”

Self-sacrificing in this case would be a very, very great good. You are VOLUNTARILY willing to lay your life down to save others. Jesus did the same thing, though He was saving the whole world.

Pushing someone else down on the grenade is not self-sacrifice, it’s murder. Doesn’t matter if it’s to accomplish a good thing. It would be very wrong. That other man has no chance to voluntarily sacrifice…his life was taken.

You mentioned stoning…that has to do with just punishment for sin and crimes. We have punishment (jail, death penalty) for criminals now. Back then, there were no jails or ways to keep criminals away from the population. Serious crimes merited the death penalty (stoning).

God gave the Hebrews a strict moral Law to follow, but that Law was much more just and loving than the types of government and punishments than the surrounding pagan nations were used to. God has been gradually bringing the human race to a higher knowledge of love and what that means. Jesus was our ultimate and perfect example of what it means to love.
 
Last edited:
Ioana said:
Why is that different if it is self-sacrifice?
Click to expand...
Self-sacrifice is a willful choice to spare others from a form of death or suffering by taking it upon yourself. Johnny’s action of throwing himself on the grenade is a choice to accept an inevitable death from it while sparing his friends of the same fate. He is only passively accepting death and not actively inflicting it on himself. If he pushed Sam onto the grenade, that is very different because he has no right to choose on Sam’s behalf that Sam ought to be sacrificed. Pushing Sam onto the grenade would be an act of direct willful killing, i.e. murder.
Ioana said:
How does double effect fit in?
Click to expand...
The principle of double effect applies to actions that have both a good and a bad effect or consequence. There are four requirements for it:
  1. The action itself must be morally good or neutral
  2. One must intend only the good effect
  3. The good effect may not caused by the bad effect
  4. The good effect must be proportionate to the bad effect
In the case of Johnny throwing himself on a grenade, his action in the first place is one of shielding his friends from death. This is in itself a morally good action. His action will have the bad effect of his own death, but this is an undesired consequence. He only intends the good effect of his friends’ lives being preserved. I would further argue that the good effect (his friends’ lives being saved) is not caused by the bad effect (his death), because the immediate cause of their being saved is not his death, but his body blocking the grenade. And lastly, the good effect of six human lives saved is proportionate to the one human life lost.

Hope this is helpful. Pax.
 
I have reproduced your argument below, substituting some names:
In the case of Johnny throwing Sam on a grenade, his action in the first place is one of shielding his friends from death. This is in itself a morally good action. His action will have the bad effect of Sam’s death, but this is an undesired consequence. He only intends the good effect of his and his other friends’ lives being preserved. I would further argue that the good effect (his and his friends’ lives being saved) is not caused by the bad effect (Sam’s death), because the immediate cause of their being saved is not Sam’s death, but Sam’s body blocking the grenade. And lastly, the good effect of six human lives saved is proportionate to the one human life lost.
Click to expand...
I’m trying to think what the distinction is. I’m thinking it’s in the first condition “The action itself must be morally good or neutral.” I think what makes it not morally good or neutral is not Sam’s death (which is not an intended effect) but rather the exercise of force over Sam’s own individual autonomy–whether he dies or not or is harmed or not, moving him against his will (without due authority over him or without his consent) would be immoral (even if only very slightly in other circumstances where he is not harmed).

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
Genesis315 said:
Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Thank you, it is interesting to consider the issue in the way you formulated it. I tend to agree with you on that distinction. If Johnny throws Sam on the grenade then he is using Sam’s body as a shield from harm to himself and others. Using someone else in that way would be a serious violation of that person’s autonomy and right to life. Choosing of your own accord to shield others from death is heroic; forcing someone else to fill that role is absolute cowardice.
 
Also side scenario (pretty unrelated but still wanted to ask) it is pretty creepy say that you are in a public library and two people with guns walk in and start shooting. You all try to hide. Somehow you manage to overpower the two assailants and take their guns. Would it be right to shoot them in hopes of injuring them?
 
Ioana said:
Would it be right to shoot them in hopes of injuring them?
Click to expand...
The rule is to use the least force necessary. If the assailants cease attack and you can hold them at gunpoint until the police get there, it would be wrong to shoot them because there is no need for it. But if the assailants came at you trying to get their guns back, it would be perfectly legitimate to shoot them in self defense with the intention of injuring them.
 
Last edited:
but wouldn’t injuring or even threatening be intrinsically evil and would that not be using evil means to achieve a good end?
 
I would think physically injuring can’t be intrinsically evil because sometimes it must be done for a greater good. Surgery, which involves cutting people open, is an example. I don’t think “threatening” could be thought of as intrinsically evil either, especially if it counts as a threat any time law enforcement pulls out their guns on a criminal.
 
I don’t think it’s that complicated. Taking one’s life is evil. But it’s fundamentally different from sacrificing oneself to save the life of your friends.
One is despairing and abuses the gift of life given by God. One is imitating the sacrifice of Christ.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top