Doing Good by Doing Evil

[CuriousInIL]

Murder is the intentional taking of a life; intentionally depriving someone of life.

Killing someone, even in self defense, is objectively evil… but lacks the essence of “Free Will” because fear of harm to one’s family tends to have an over powering effect. No free will, no mortal sin.

Nope. The Fifth Comandment prohibits the deliberate murder of an innocent. There is no teaching that I am aware of that killing someone is objectively evil.

2261 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.

 

[Augustine]

So you could put it to Junior this way: If a person kills an attacker unintentionally while defending himself, he is not sinning. If a person kills an attacker intetionally, but that was the level of force required to stop him, he is not sinning. However, if a person kills an attacker intentionally, when he knows lethal force is not necessary, and he is capable of using less force and accomplishing the same task, then he is sinning.

IOW, killing is not intrinsically evil? Another case, a soldier in war, when the act of killing is quite dettached from the intent, which only the general knows, therefore the soldier acts in his proxy… complicating matters even more.

Of course, “Junior” is 17 years-old, so there might be follow up questions.

Thanks.

 

[surfinpure]

IOW, killing is not intrinsically evil? Another case, a soldier in war, when the act of killing is quite dettached from the intent, which only the general knows, therefore the soldier acts in his proxy… complicating matters even more.

Of course, “Junior” is 17 years-old, so there might be follow up questions.

Thanks.

No, killing is not intrinsically evil. The proper translation of “Thou shalt not kill” is “Thou shalt not murder.”

Consider that OBGYNs often have to perform surgery for an ectopic pregnancy, which ends the life of the baby. In effect, they take a life, but the child will die regardless, and the mother with him/her if nothing is done.

In the Old Testament, the Lord commanded multiple armies to slay other armies. He also instituted strict rules of capital punishment. Why would he command his people to sin?

It must also be noted that the Church has a “Just War” doctrine, which outlines the circumstances under which combat action is moral. If all killing were sinful, there would be no such thing as a just war.

 

[Augustine]

OK, I think that I found myself cornered because I assumed that killing is intrinsically evil.

The proper translation of “Thou shalt not kill” is “Thou shalt not murder.”

Is this really true? I think that I heard somewhere that this is not accurate either.

 

[surfinpure]

OK, I think that I found myself cornered because I assumed that killing is intrinsically evil.

Is this really true? I think that I heard somewhere that this is not accurate either.

This is how I’ve heard it taught by apologists. But if you want to verify it, perhaps the Ask an Apologist forum would be a good place to start. Likely it’s been discussed there before.

 

[surfinpure]

Here is one explanation by an anti-Christian Hebrew scholar:

Indeed, “kill” in English is an all-encompassing verb that covers the taking of life in all forms and for all classes of victims. That kind of generalization is expressed in Hebrew through the verb “harag.” However, the verb that appears in the Torah’s prohibition is a completely different one, “* ratsah*” which, it would seem, should be rendered “murder.” This root refers only to criminal acts of killing.

ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Shokel/001102_ThouShaltNotMurder.html

 

[Imryl]

Nope. The Fifth Comandment prohibits the deliberate murder of an innocent. There is no teaching that I am aware of that killing someone is objectively evil.

You are right. I worded that wrong. That’s what I get for rushing out for my meeting.

 

[Caesar517]

Augustine, have you ever heard of the Principle of Double Effect? It is exactly what you need here.

This set of criteria states that an action having foreseen harmful effects practically inseperable from the good effect(for example, the deaths of innocent non-combatants in an act of war)is justifiable if the upon satisfaction of the following:

• the nature of the act is itself good, or at least morally neutral.
• the agent intends the good effect and not the bad either as a means to the good or as an end itself.
• the good effect outweighs the bad effect in circumstances sufficiently grave to justify causing the bad effect (for example, the military target has significant enough importance) and the agent exercises due diligence to minimize the harm.

 

[Augustine]

Augustine, have you ever heard of the Principle of Double Effect? It is exactly what you need here.

It looks like it. I had heard of it, but didn’t really know it.

Thanks.

 

[fix]

Yes, that’s the end to which, it seems to me, killing is a means…

Moral actions have an intent, a means, and an end.

In the example here some person is trying to kill you. The end you desire is for him to stop trying to kill you. Your intent is to stop him. The means is force that is proportional to the attack. It may mean deadly force. You intend to use enough force to get him to stop. You use it and he dies. That is not your intent but an unintended result.

I mean, the assailant’s death is a mean to achieve an end, it’s a mean chosen among many according to the situation and willfully exercised, as in one has to aim and pull the trigger to kill the assailant.

Yes, your intent is to stop him and the only way is deadly force.

It’s more than a mere side-effect of defending oneself, as it would undoubtedly be the case if one pushed an assailant and he falls through the window from the 5th floor. It’s an intended consequence of pulling the trigger.

But, you are not willing the death. You are willing that he stop it.

 

[surfinpure]

A very good post, Fix.

Furthermore, if an attacker threatens your life, it is he who puts his life in jeopardy. If he gets killed as a result, he is responsible for the loss of his own life, not the person who is required to kill him.

 

[CuriousInIL]

How about reading these sections:

Legitimate defense
2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.”
2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

See, defense can even be a duty.