How is self defense consistent with double effect?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fakename
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If it is morally lawfull to kill a person who is trying to murder a 6 yr.old child in a playground , why would it be imoral to kill an abortionist in the act of killing a 6 mo.old pre-born child if there were no other way to stop him?
 
jplukenda said:
If it is morally lawfull to kill a person who is trying to murder a 6 yr.old child in a playground , why would it be imoral to kill an abortionist in the act of killing a 6 mo.old pre-born child if there were no other way to stop him?
Click to expand...
Wow. I’ve never considered that.
 
!n my mind it seems moral intellectually speaking, but in my heart it just seems wrong!
 
fakename said:
I don’t think it’s wrong per se but that Church law says not to do it since it will cause disorder or blowback.
Click to expand...
So can self defense with a gun, in some cases.

Look at George Zimmerman. He had lacerations on his head, and it’s likely that he was pinned before he used deadly force to protect himself.

It doesn’t seem that the morality of an act should be decided on how people react.
 
jplukenda said:
If it is morally lawfull to kill a person who is trying to murder a 6 yr.old child in a playground , why would it be imoral to kill an abortionist in the act of killing a 6 mo.old pre-born child if there were no other way to stop him?
Click to expand...
Killing the abortionist won’t necessarily protect the child, as the mother can simply go to a different clinic. With the situation of the child on the playground, you can defend the child, if necessary kill the attacker, because of the principal of double effect. The abortion situation doesn’t apply for the principal of double effect because there isn’t reasonable evidence supporting the fact that killing the doctor will produce the good effect, protecting the child.
 
PHSshamrock said:
Killing the abortionist won’t necessarily protect the child, as the mother can simply go to a different clinic. With the situation of the child on the playground, you can defend the child, if necessary kill the attacker, because of the principal of double effect. The abortion situation doesn’t apply for the principal of double effect because there isn’t reasonable evidence supporting the fact that killing the doctor will produce the good effect, protecting the child.
Click to expand...
You could say the same about a world full of “bad guys,” but because of the current culture (if you try to kill kids, you may get yourself shot by poliece or others). There still doesn’t seem to be a strong difference: if that same culture was created with abortionists, the result would be the same: there wouldn’t be many left to do the abortions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top