Heroic Suicides

  • Thread starter Thread starter mcliffor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mcliffor

Guest
I’ve heard a story about a soldier in WWI who threw himself on a granade to save the other men in his trench, and that this was an heoic act of self sacrifice because he gave up his life to save others, in the same way Christ did. But if a person were to kill himself so that a terminally ill person who was about to die could have his organs, wouldn’t this be the same thing, or is it wrong? The scenario was on House the other night and it got me thinking.
 
Suicide is objectively a mortal sin. There can be no such thing as a ‘heroic suicide’, any more than there can be any ‘heroic’ sin - ‘heroic murder’, ‘heroic adultery’, ‘heroic idolatry’.

This is the difference:
Suicide - the intention is to end one’s life (which no one has a right to do).
Jumping on a grenade - the intention is to save someone else’s life (‘no greater love has a man than to lay down his life for his friends’); ending your life was not the main intention, it’s just an unavoidable ‘side effect’ (who knows, you might even survive - and you would would want to if possible)

Killing oneself so as to give one’s organs is a clear act of suicide - one intends to end one’s life, to achieve the ‘side effect’ of donating organs - which isn’t guaranteed to work out and save the other’s life.
 
Trevelyan said:
Suicide is objectively a mortal sin. There can be no such thing as a ‘heroic suicide’, any more than there can be any ‘heroic’ sin - ‘heroic murder’, ‘heroic adultery’, ‘heroic idolatry’.

This is the difference:
Suicide - the intention is to end one’s life (which no one has a right to do).
Jumping on a grenade - the intention is to save someone else’s life (‘no greater love has a man than to lay down his life for his friends’); ending your life was not the main intention, it’s just an unavoidable ‘side effect’ (who knows, you might even survive - and you would would want to if possible)

Killing oneself so as to give one’s organs is a clear act of suicide - one intends to end one’s life, to achieve the ‘side effect’ of donating organs - which isn’t guaranteed to work out and save the other’s life.
Click to expand...
It’s somewhat difficult for us to discern others’ intentions. I’d say it is perfectly plausible that someone intends to save another by organ doation, and sees his own demise as a side effect.

How about Sydney Carton? “It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known”.
 
The soldier did not intend his own death. Nor was saving the others a direct result of the death. His intent was to block the grenade, a neutral act, to save the many others. His death was an unintended (but foreseen) side effect that was outweighed by saving many lives.

We know that losing his own life was not his intent and merely a side effect because he wouldn’t have cared (and in fact would have preferred) if he could have stopped the grenade without his death. If jumping on the grenade had merely caused him survivable harm…he would have still done it. It was not his death specifically that was necessary to stop the grenade, just some form of blocking it. The grenade being blocked was not the result of his death, rather, his death was the result of the grenade being blocked. The order of causation in this situation is acceptable: the cause (his body blocking grenade) was neutral and the good results of this neutral action (saving lives) outweighed the bad (his death from the injuries).

However, killing oneself to give an organ doesnt work out that way. When someone kills themselves to give an organ (especially by just taking pills beforehand like the guy on House…but even if the death happens on the operating table intentionally) the death is the cause of the organ transplant with certain organs.

The heart being removed IS death. The person can’t say, “Well, the intention was to remove the heart, a neutral action, with the good effect saving lives with the organs outweighing the unintentional death of the patient.” No, removing the heart permanently IS killing, not a neutral act, but an intrinsically evil act. Someone cannot plausibly say that the death isn’t the cause of the good, merely a side effect of a previous neutral action leading to both. What neutral action would this be? “Removing the heart” is not a neutral action with the unintended side effect of killing, it IS killing. The soldier could have at least imagined surviving, as long as he saved his comrades, he didnt particularly want to die, he would have been fine with the possibility of merely being injured, not killed. But no person giving away their heart while they are still alive can entertain the notion that their death is merely a “side effect”. No, “Death” and “heart removal” are basically the same action. In the soldier case you can truly abstract “blocking the grenade” seperate from “death” (maybe he will merely be injured). But “heart removal” cannot be reasonably abstracted from “death”…Maybe someday when permenant artificial hearts are invented, but not now.
 
batteddy said:
The soldier did not intend his own death. Nor was saving the others a direct result of the death. His intent was to block the grenade, a neutral act, to save the many others. His death was an unintended (but foreseen) side effect that was outweighed by saving many lives.

We know that losing his own life was not his intent and merely a side effect because he wouldn’t have cared (and in fact would have preferred) if he could have stopped the grenade without his death. If jumping on the grenade had merely caused him survivable harm…he would have still done it. It was not his death specifically that was necessary to stop the grenade, just some form of blocking it. The grenade being blocked was not the result of his death, rather, his death was the result of the grenade being blocked. The order of causation in this situation is acceptable: the cause (his body blocking grenade) was neutral and the good results of this neutral action (saving lives) outweighed the bad (his death from the injuries).

However, killing oneself to give an organ doesnt work out that way. When someone kills themselves to give an organ (especially by just taking pills beforehand like the guy on House…but even if the death happens on the operating table intentionally) the death is the cause of the organ transplant with certain organs.

The heart being removed IS death. The person can’t say, “Well, the intention was to remove the heart, a neutral action, with the good effect saving lives with the organs outweighing the unintentional death of the patient.” No, removing the heart permanently IS killing, not a neutral act, but an intrinsically evil act. Someone cannot plausibly say that the death isn’t the cause of the good, merely a side effect of a previous neutral action leading to both. What neutral action would this be? “Removing the heart” is not a neutral action with the unintended side effect of killing, it IS killing. The soldier could have at least imagined surviving, as long as he saved his comrades, he didnt particularly want to die, he would have been fine with the possibility of merely being injured, not killed. But no person giving away their heart while they are still alive can entertain the notion that their death is merely a “side effect”. No, “Death” and “heart removal” are basically the same action. In the soldier case you can truly abstract “blocking the grenade” seperate from “death” (maybe he will merely be injured). But “heart removal” cannot be reasonably abstracted from “death”…Maybe someday when permenant artificial hearts are invented, but not now.
Click to expand...
OK. If you wnat to say the soldier thinks he will survive the grenade, how about a satchel charge? Suicide?
 
why would you say “heroic suicide”? isn’t that an oxymoron? suicide is an act of cowardice? I’m not understanding your thread. I have a lot of experience with those wanting to find a way to end their pain… suicide is an option for those without other choices. Maybe you should re-frame your scenario
 
My 2 cents,

When people dive on a grenade or wade into a deadly situation to save another it usualy just happens. There is no great amount of time planning it out with music playing in the backround like the movies. These people are still heros and should be seen as such. If a person dies protecting another from mortal danger it is justified and good.

When a person is dying of a disease this is a sad event but part of Gods natural order. For me to sacrifice my life so another could have organs would be playing God and suicide at the same time. My life is a gift and God can take me home and anyone else home in (his) good timing.

-D
 
You also have to take the fact that a soldier in the same room as the grenade will most likely die even if no action is taken. If you are going to die anyway, its not a suicidal act to throw yourself on a grenade, but an act to save another from your fate…
 
Isidore_AK said:
You also have to take the fact that a soldier in the same room as the grenade will most likely die even if no action is taken. If you are going to die anyway, its not a suicidal act to throw yourself on a grenade, but an act to save another from your fate…
Click to expand...
Good point!!👍
 
Trevelyan said:
Suicide is objectively a mortal sin. There can be no such thing as a ‘heroic suicide’, any more than there can be any ‘heroic’ sin - ‘heroic murder’, ‘heroic adultery’, ‘heroic idolatry’.

This is the difference:
Suicide - the intention is to end one’s life (which no one has a right to do).
Jumping on a grenade - the intention is to save someone else’s life (); ending your life was not the main intention, it’s just an unavoidable ‘side effect’ (who knows, you might even survive - and you would would want to if possible)

Killing oneself so as to give one’s organs is a clear act of suicide - one intends to end one’s life, to achieve the ‘side effect’ of donating organs - which isn’t guaranteed to work out and save the other’s life.
Click to expand...
Not to mention heroic revenge.

Also:
‘no greater love has a man than to lay down his life for his friends’
Click to expand...
Why can’t women do the same thing?
 
Certain kinds of actions are always immoral, regardless of circumstances:

But the negative moral precepts, those prohibiting certain concrete actions or kinds of behaviour as intrinsically evil, do not allow for any legitimate exception. They do not leave room, in any morally acceptable way, for the “creativity” of any contrary determination whatsoever. Once the moral species of an action prohibited by a universal rule is concretely recognized, the only morally good act is that of obeying the moral law and of refraining from the action which it forbids. (JP2, Veritatis Splendor, 67)

Acts which are always immoral because they are intrinsically evil include:
lying, stealing, direct abortion, murder, suicide, and all sexual acts other than natural marital relations open to life.
 
OK. If you wnat to say the soldier thinks he will survive the grenade, how about a satchel charge? Suicide?
Click to expand...
Huh?

No. What I was saying is that “blocking grenade” and “dying” are clearly two seperate events. Just as “removing uterus” and “fetus dying” are two seperate events. In both cases, the events follow in succession, and the former causes the latter, but is not the same as it. You can abstractly seperate the two events, even if under the current situation cannot practically seperate them.

But “removing heart” and “patient dying” at this point in history cannot be reasonably said to be two seperate events any more than “cutting off head” and “patient dying” are two seperate events. It is not as if the former causes the latter. The former IS the latter. They are two words for the same thing. It is not (like in the soldier or histerectomy case) that the first “unfortunately inevitably leads to the second” but that the first event IS, morally, the second even. “Removing heart” is not a neutral cause that can be reasonably abstracted from the “result of dying”…no, removing a heart IS killing. In this case, the death of the patient is not incidental to the good effect sought, it is the direct cause. Which is wrong, the ends dont justify the means…

Whereas, in the soldier and historectomy case…the soldier dying and the fetus dying are incidental to the neutral cause and the good effect of saving lives. The soldier or fetus could perhaps survive if treated fast enough, as the good effect does not logically require their deaths (as long as the grenade is blocked, it doesnt matter if the soldier actually* dies*. as long as the cancerous uterus is removed, it doesn’t matter if the fetus actually* dies*). But the patient needing the heart depends on the other person having their heart cut out, which at this point in technological development is the same as killing them just as much as cutting off their head would be.
 
batteddy said:
Huh?

No. What I was saying is that “blocking grenade” and “dying” are clearly two seperate events. Just as “removing uterus” and “fetus dying” are two seperate events. In both cases, the events follow in succession, and the former causes the latter, but is not the same as it. You can abstractly seperate the two events, even if under the current situation cannot practically seperate them.

But “removing heart” and “patient dying” at this point in history cannot be reasonably said to be two seperate events any more than “cutting off head” and “patient dying” are two seperate events. It is not as if the former causes the latter. The former IS the latter. They are two words for the same thing. It is not (like in the soldier or histerectomy case) that the first “unfortunately inevitably leads to the second” but that the first event IS, morally, the second even. “Removing heart” is not a neutral cause that can be reasonably abstracted from the “result of dying”…no, removing a heart IS killing. In this case, the death of the patient is not incidental to the good effect sought, it is the direct cause. Which is wrong, the ends dont justify the means…

Whereas, in the soldier and historectomy case…the soldier dying and the fetus dying are incidental to the neutral cause and the good effect of saving lives. The soldier or fetus could perhaps survive if treated fast enough, as the good effect does not logically require their deaths (as long as the grenade is blocked, it doesnt matter if the soldier actually* dies*. as long as the cancerous uterus is removed, it doesn’t matter if the fetus actually* dies*). But the patient needing the heart depends on the other person having their heart cut out, which at this point in technological development is the same as killing them just as much as cutting off their head would be.
Click to expand...
It’s hard to see how snuggling up to an exploding satchel charge and dying are two separate events.
 
HoppityRedux said:
It’s hard to see how snuggling up to an exploding satchel charge and dying are two separate events.
Click to expand...
The soldier would die anyway if he is around when it explodes. By smothering it he may just save his buddies…definitely not a suicide.
 
Isidore_AK said:
The soldier would die anyway if he is around when it explodes. By smothering it he may just save his buddies…definitely not a suicide.
Click to expand...
We could quibble about how he may or may not die if he didn’t embrace the satchel. But the fact remains that he chooses to sacrifice his life so another may live. So does the pilot who stays with his plane rather than bailing and letting it possibly crash into people. So does the guy who gives his heart so another may live.

I don’t care if we call it suicide; that’s not important. They are all doing the same thing. They are sacrificing ther lives so others may live. Maybe some think they are following Jesus’ example.
 
It’s hard to see how snuggling up to an exploding satchel charge and dying are two separate events.
Click to expand...
They are two very different events. We do not define snuggling up to a satchel as “death”…heck, the satchel may be turn out to be a dud. Either way, as long as the explosion is blocked somehow, his death is incidental. His death after covering the satchel may be inevitable, but it is not the same act, but rather follows in causative sucession.

But “removing a heart” is the same as “killing”. There is one event, not a neutral cause with a bad result. There is not a removal of heart followed by a death. The removal of the heart is a death. The death is necessary cause for the other persons life to be saved, not merely an inevitable side effect.
 
batteddy said:
They are two very different events. We do not define snuggling up to a satchel as “death”…heck, the satchel may be turn out to be a dud. Either way, as long as the explosion is blocked somehow, his death is incidental. His death after covering the satchel may be inevitable, but it is not the same act, but rather follows in causative sucession.

But “removing a heart” is the same as “killing”. There is one event, not a neutral cause with a bad result. There is not a removal of heart followed by a death. The removal of the heart is a death. The death is necessary cause for the other persons life to be saved, not merely an inevitable side effect.
Click to expand...
Blowing the heart out with a satchel charge is the same as killing. It’s one event.
 
What about people who jump out of burning buildings rather than burn alive. Aren’t they also willfully ending their life to avoid pain? Is this self-inflicted mercy killing?
 
mcliffor said:
What about people who jump out of burning buildings rather than burn alive. Aren’t they also willfully ending their life to avoid pain? Is this self-inflicted mercy killing?
Click to expand...
Ever been on fire?

I think God will understand. As always only he knows the true intentions of the heart.

-D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top