Differences in sin between these scenarios?

[carn]

A and some other persons B (e.g. 4, though number irrelevant) are stuck in some in some shelter room or area (e.g. tent, boat, safety room) in some bad circumstances (e.g. snow storm, middle of some ocean, radioactive fallout or pandemic area), the bad circumstances will likely last for at least some days and they are running out of supplies necessary for survival (e.g. water, food, medicine).
A furthermore is in such bad condition (injured, ill), that his chance to survive till circumstances improve are as far as conditions suggest 0. But his consumption of supplies for the time he will still live reduces the survival chances of the Bs considerable.

scnario 1:
Bs discuss the issue, while A is unconcious from his condition and decide to kick A out, so their survival chance is improved, they throw him out of the safe area (e.g. throw him out of the lifeboat or out of the tent). A dies and Bs survive just on the edge in supplies they saved by casting out A.

2:
Bs discuss the issue, but decide against. B, not that unconscious, realizes what they are thinking, and decides that it is better him than all 4 and leaves on his own, while the others sleep. Otherwise as 1.

3:
Bs do not discuss the issue, but A gets the idea anyway and leaves to die, otherwise as 1.

4:
As 3, except that Bs notice A preparing to leave and die and do not stop him.

5:
As 4, except that the Bs stop A and all die as a result of using up supplies. Help arrives to find all dead just at the time, the Bs would have survived without A using up resources.

6:
A realizes the situation and declines to use supplies (e.g. stops eating and drinking), dies and Bs survive due to enough supplies.

7:
A realizes the situation and wants to decline to use supplies, but Bs convince him otherwise, all die as under 5.

For shortness in which, if any ,of the scnerarios, did all participants avoid sinning?

 

[Polycarp1]

Looking at sins of commission and ommission I would say that in options 5, and 7 there was no sin. As they couldn’t be absolutely sure that death would result as they didn’t know when and if help would arrive all are morally obligated to preserve the lives and themselves.

While option 6 seems noble as one laying down his life for others, in reality he couldn’t be sure help wouldn’t arrive and can’t morally cast off the gift of life God gave him. Death was likely but not certain.

IMHO

 

[revert_jen]

I think that including the result (e.g. help arrives just as they did/would have run out of supplies) is misleading. If there is any sin, it happens at the time of decision, at which time they don’t kow what the outcome would be. Therefore, the outcome is irrelevant to the decision. But if you put in the outcome, it appears relevant. For example, take # 5:

5:
As 4, except that the Bs stop A and all die as a result of using up supplies. Help arrives to find all dead just at the time, the Bs would have survived without A using up resources.

None of them can know that help would arrive just in time to find everyone dead, so that can’t be part of the decision, so it is unrelated to the question of sin. For a bias in the other way, you could redo scenario #6 to be:
“A realizes the situation and declines to use supplies (e.g. stops eating and drinking), dies, and help arrives immediately after that, while there are still supplies.”

From the standpoint of the time of decision, that scenario is exactly the same as #6.

They can’t possibly know exactly when help will arrive, so until the arrival of the help or until the last one dies, they don’t know how many people their supplies can support. They also can’t know that A has no chance of surviving until they are rescued, unless he is so sick or badly injured that he probably isn’t able to eat or drink much anyway.

So your real options should read more like this:

1. Bs discuss the issue and throw A out.
2. A decides to leave and leaves without Bs knowing ahead of time. (There is no moral difference between whether he does it because he overheard something or whether he worked it out for himself.)
3. A decides to leave, Bs notice, and they do not stop A from leaving.
4. A decides to leave, Bs notice, and they stop A from leaving.
5. A decides to stay, but refuses food and water.
6. A decides to stay, tries to refuse food and water, but Bs insist he continue to eat and drink.
7. Clearly sinful for Bs, not for A.
8. Clearly not sinful for Bs, possibly merely misguided for A, but possibly sinful.
9. Sinful for Bs, possibly merely misguided for A, but possibly sinful.
10. Admirable for Bs, possibly merely misguided for A, but possibly sinful, although less so than 2 and 3. (a sin of intention, not commission.)
11. Probably not sinful for Bs, possibly merely misguided for A, but possibly sinful.
12. Admirable for Bs, possibly merely misguided for A, but possibly sinful, although less so than 5.

So possibly the answer is that there are no scenarios in which everyone avoided sinning. I’m just talking objectively of course, not talking about culpability. A may just have a poorly formed conscience and be doing the best he can. And if the Bs are successful in pursuading A not to leave (or starve himself), possibly he never would really have left, so whether that is really sinful is something only God can know.

–Jen

 

[carn]

I think that including the result (e.g. help arrives just as they did/would have run out of supplies) is misleading.

No, because its to emphasize:
“A furthermore is in such bad condition (injured, ill), that his chance to survive till circumstances improve are as far as conditions suggest 0. But his consumption of supplies for the time he will still live reduces the survival chances of the Bs considerable.”

And if something is rather likely, it is to be treated as known, for example jumping from the 20th floor onto concrete is only rather likely to kill someone, its not certain, yet no one would consider jumping from the 20th floor as anything but attempted suicide. And that although death is not certain to be caused by jumping.

The line of thought here is simililar, not certain but pretty likely that:
-A cannot survive till help arises, because A and Bs using supplies will drain supplies beforehand and/or A will die anyway to due his bad condition
-Only Bs using supplies will allow Bs to survive till help arives

Add to any of the sentences a “as far as human knowledge can predict and what can be reasonably expected” or something like that.

None of them can know that help would arrive just in time to find everyone dead, so that can’t be part of the decision, so it is unrelated to the question of sin.

The scenarios with unknown survival chances are easy to solve morally, i’m interested in the situation where it is close to certain or certain that A stopping using supplies allows Bs to survive with otherwise all dying.

 

[revert_jen]

The scenarios with unknown survival chances are easy to solve morally, i’m interested in the situation where it is close to certain or certain that A stopping using supplies allows Bs to survive with otherwise all dying.

My point was that there isn’t really any such situation. Or rather, that people in such a situation cannot possibly be sure that that they are in that situation. Things people can’t possibly know with any certainty can’t be considered in their decisions. If they were in that situation, they would probably just think that the likelihood is that they will all die anyway, so it would be a good idea if none of them died murderers or suicides.

But even if they felt sure, the general moral principle, “You may not do evil that good may come,” still holds.

–Jen

 

[Peter_Plato]

I think that including the result (e.g. help arrives just as they did/would have run out of supplies) is misleading. If there is any sin, it happens at the time of decision, at which time they don’t kow what the outcome would be. Therefore, the outcome is irrelevant to the decision. But if you put in the outcome, it appears relevant. For example, take # 5:

None of them can know that help would arrive just in time to find everyone dead, so that can’t be part of the decision, so it is unrelated to the question of sin. For a bias in the other way, you could redo scenario #6 to be:
“A realizes the situation and declines to use supplies (e.g. stops eating and drinking), dies, and help arrives immediately after that, while there are still supplies.”

From the standpoint of the time of decision, that scenario is exactly the same as #6.

They can’t possibly know exactly when help will arrive, so until the arrival of the help or until the last one dies, they don’t know how many people their supplies can support. They also can’t know that A has no chance of surviving until they are rescued, unless he is so sick or badly injured that he probably isn’t able to eat or drink much anyway.

So your real options should read more like this:

1. Bs discuss the issue and throw A out.
2. A decides to leave and leaves without Bs knowing ahead of time. (There is no moral difference between whether he does it because he overheard something or whether he worked it out for himself.)
3. A decides to leave, Bs notice, and they do not stop A from leaving.
4. A decides to leave, Bs notice, and they stop A from leaving.
5. A decides to stay, but refuses food and water.
6. A decides to stay, tries to refuse food and water, but Bs insist he continue to eat and drink.
7. Clearly sinful for Bs, not for A.
8. Clearly not sinful for Bs, possibly merely misguided for A, but possibly sinful.
9. Sinful for Bs, possibly merely misguided for A, but possibly sinful.
10. Admirable for Bs, possibly merely misguided for A, but possibly sinful, although less so than 2 and 3. (a sin of intention, not commission.)
11. Probably not sinful for Bs, possibly merely misguided for A, but possibly sinful.
12. Admirable for Bs, possibly merely misguided for A, but possibly sinful, although less so than 5.

So possibly the answer is that there are no scenarios in which everyone avoided sinning. I’m just talking objectively of course, not talking about culpability. A may just have a poorly formed conscience and be doing the best he can. And if the Bs are successful in pursuading A not to leave (or starve himself), possibly he never would really have left, so whether that is really sinful is something only God can know.

–Jen

So you are saying that A, depriving him/her self of needs for the sake of others is sinful?

A starving mother who gives her child her share of food that the child might survive is being sinful?

Please explain why that would be a case of being misguided or having a malformed conscience. Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. (John 15:13)

 

[revert_jen]

So you are saying that A, depriving him/her self of needs for the sake of others is sinful?

A starving mother who gives her child her share of food that the child might survive is being sinful?

Please explain why that would be a case of being misguided or having a malformed conscience. Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. (John 15:13)

I’m saying that committing suicide for no certain benefit to others is not a meriorious act.

The mother is not in the same position.

–Jen

 

[carn]

I’m saying that committing suicide for no certain benefit to others is not a meriorious act.

The mother is not in the same position.

–Jen

But then the morality of the mothers action and the morality of B leaving on his own/stopping to eat depend on the certainity of the benefit.

But in respect to the benefit, there is always ambiguity. An extreme example, which sadly does happen in real life, a grenade is thrown into the midth of a group of soldiers, one of them jumps on the grenade,takes the blast and dies, comrades mostly unharmed. The morality of the soldiers action would depend on the grenade yield, position of the soldiers and how the surronding area is (e.g. confined room, outside, ability too reach cover), because all these factors greatly influence whether there is certain benefit for the others and the amount of benefit. And the benefit would never be certain, because even a grenade in an mostly enclosed room right next to someone is not guranteed to kill that someone, its just rather likely.

Does the morality realy depend on the actual certainity or does it depend on what the person in questions thinks to be certain?

edit:
The issue of “certain” is especially relevant, because at least current science suggest that practically any event can take place (for example food apearing out of thin air), only the probability for things humans consider impossible (like food appearing out of thin air) is so ridiculously low, that nobody has ever to care about it (e.g. probability of ready steak right in front of you in the next second something like 1 to 10^26^1000 or probably never happening ever during the universe life time anywhere), but ridiculously low is not identical to never.