Hypothetical Dilemma: 7 Billion People will die if you don't shoot the baby in the head and eat its Bodily-Remains

[Della]

I haven’t read all the posts, but the third response would be a choice the OP didn’t give us–defiance. I’d tell the aggressors nertz to you! I wouldn’t kill a dog and eat it to please anyone who would put such terms before me because no one who would do so would keep his word or care what happened to humanity. I’d fight! And the guy who proposed this would be the first I’d go for because he could not be trusted to keep his filthy bargain.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

7 Billion is the estimated number of People existing on the planet.

In the year 2015, first-contact is established with an alien race of unknown origins.

It is evident that these beings transcend our meagre technological advancements, and that it would be certain the human race would be wiped out within a mere second if war was to ensue.

A child is born.

The aliens leaders demand that we shoot the child in the head and eat its bodily-remains, otherwise they will wipe out the 7 billion inhabitants of the planet earth, putting an end to our miserable race.

The leaders of every country, in believing that the decision should not be the expression of any one person or individual, decide to hold a voting ballot, where you can vote for or against the death of the child.

Vote; and give the rational reasons why you voted for or against.

I would NOT kill the baby, etc.

Reasons:
(1) I am only responsible for my actions.
(2) The dilemma I am in is of their doing, not mine; and the evil they threaten is on their head, not mine.
(3) Deliberately killing and eating the baby are grave matter, and mortal sins if done freely.
(4) I have no way to know that they will keep their end of the bargain even if I do kill the baby, etc.–they may kill me and everyone else anyway in which case I die in a state of mortal sin.
(5) I would plead with them not to follow through, but I will not kill the baby, etc.
(6) I live by faith and trust that if I make the choices God wants me to make, His will will be done, and He will see to it that all things work together for good.

 

[davidv]

No action ever takes place in isolation. The circumstances cannot be “glossed over” - that would be an error.

How did Joe 5859’s answer gloss this over?

And the concept of “intrinsically evil” is incorrect, precisely because it does attempt to evaluate an act as if it happened in isolation.

The act isn’t isolated. By its very nature murder is instrincally evil. No circumstance changes this.

Just one example: many say that “stealing” is intrinsically wrong or “evil” - no if’s and’s and but’s. Of course these people will change their tune when one asks a specific question: “is it intrinsically evil to steal a piece of bread to avoid stavation?”. Surpise, surprise… All of a sudden, “stealing” is not intrinsically evil. You said in the highlighted text that everything needs to be taken into consideration

Including the intrinsic nature of the act.

• and, of course I agree. But that immediately excludes the blanket condemnation of “act X is intrinsically evil, under any and all circumstances”.

Only if one ignors the “object” of the act.

 

[Serious]

However you left out one very important part of the equation. One course of action requires committing an intrisically evil act. The other does not.

This needs to ask for clarification. The “non-action” still will result the extinction of the whole human race, thus “depriving” God of all the possible future worshippers - which seems to be pretty serious.

The problem is that both the action and the non-action carry consequences. For example, if one sees a boulder starting to roll downhill (and could prevent it in time) and fails to do so, it would be a “cheap” excuse to say: “hey it was gravity that did it, why blame me?”. The fact is that there is no difference between “by commission” and “by omission”.

 

[ValPal]

The aliens leaders demand that we shoot the child in the head and eat its bodily-remains, otherwise they will wipe out the 7 billion inhabitants of the planet earth, putting an end to our miserable race.

Any being that sets up this scenario is not interested in the safety of the human race. It is reasonable to guess that the end result is the same regardless of which action is taken.

 

[triumphguy]

Maybe I would ask the “aliens” if I could kill myself instead of the baby and so save the 7 billion.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

You dont kill the Baby. end of story.

 

[Serious]

By its very nature murder is instrincally evil. No circumstance changes this.

In the case of war, every “killing of an enemy soldier” is premeditated - and thus it is a murder. Yet, it is “excused”. There is another one: “killing in self-defense” or in the defense of others. It is also a premeditated taking of the life of the attacker and it is also a murder, but also excused. So murder is not “intrinsically evil”… it is only wrong under some well defined circumstances and not wrong under some other circumstances.

 

[Debora123]

Accept the extinction.

I could never kill an innocent person.

…Much less a baby whose remains I’d have to eat.

 

[Della]

In the case of war, every “killing of an enemy soldier” is premeditated - and thus it is a murder. Yet, it is “excused”. There is another one: “killing in self-defense” or in the defense of others. It is also a premeditated taking of the life of the attacker and it is also a murder, but also excused. So murder is not “intrinsically evil”… it is only wrong under some well defined circumstances and not wrong under some other circumstances.

No. This is simply not the case. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

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.

Murder is deliberate killing that does not take into account the sacredness of life while self-defense does since it is not always necessary to kill the other in order to render him incapable of doing further harm. Killing when it is the only option in self-defense or in war is not murder that is excused–it simply is not murder. The commandment against killing is against murder not against killing for any reason at all.

 

[Joe_5859]

No action ever takes place in isolation. The circumstances cannot be “glossed over” - that would be an error. And the concept of “intrinsically evil” is incorrect, precisely because it does attempt to evaluate an act as if it happened in isolation.

Just one example: many say that “stealing” is intrinsically wrong or “evil” - no if’s and’s and but’s. Of course these people will change their tune when one asks a specific question: “is it intrinsically evil to steal a piece of bread to avoid stavation?”. Surpise, surprise… All of a sudden, “stealing” is not intrinsically evil. You said in the highlighted text that everything needs to be taken into consideration - and, of course I agree. But that immediately excludes the blanket condemnation of “act X is intrinsically evil, under any and all circumstances”.

Are you saying there’s no such thing as an act that is “intrinsically evil”? You’re certainly entitled to that opinion, but that is not Catholic teaching.

Stealing is an intrinsically evil act, but taking a loaf of bread to feed your starving family is not stealing. Stealing is taking something to which you have no right. A starving man has a right to food to feed his family.

I really do recommend Veritatis Splendor. It does an excellent job of explaining all this stuff. Much better than I do. Here is one paragraph that speaks to what we are discussing:

1. In order to justify these positions, some authors have proposed a kind of double status of moral truth. Beyond the doctrinal and abstract level, one would have to acknowledge the priority of a certain more concrete existential consideration. The latter, by taking account of circumstances and the situation, could legitimately be the basis of certain exceptions to the general rule and thus permit one to do in practice and in good conscience what is qualified as intrinsically evil by the moral law. A separation, or even an opposition, is thus established in some cases between the teaching of the precept, which is valid in general, and the norm of the individual conscience, which would in fact make the final decision about what is good and what is evil. On this basis, an attempt is made to legitimize so-called “pastoral” solutions contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium, and to justify a “creative” hermeneutic according to which the moral conscience is in no way obliged, in every case, by a particular negative precept.

No one can fail to realize that these approaches pose a challenge to the very identity of the moral conscience in relation to human freedom and God’s law. Only the clarification made earlier with regard to the relationship, based on truth, between freedom and law makes possible a discernment concerning this “creative” understanding of conscience.

Note, the Pope says that the position that circumstances allow for exceptions to general moral rules is a threat to the very identity of moral conscience. In other words, tread carefully.

 

[Serious]

Killing when it is the only option in self-defense or in war is not murder that is excused–it simply is not murder.

Redefinition is your friend. If all else fails - redefine the problem. Murder is an intentional taking of the life of another human being - that is it. Yet, some of the intentional killings is now not “defined” as not murder.

 

[Serious]

Stealing is an intrinsically evil act, but taking a loaf of bread to feed your starving family is not stealing. Stealing is taking something to which you have no right. A starving man has a right to food to feed his family.

If that loaf of bread is the property of someone else, and you do not have permission to take it, then it is stealing. Rights are - of course - social constructs. In the tribal communities there are no “rights”, everyone owns the whole shebang and no one owns specific “things”.

Now, it just so happens that fundamentally I agree with you. Helping to prevent starvation superceeds the property rights. But that does not “redefine” the act to become “not stealing”. In a society where there are property rights, it will remain an act of stealing. But no decent judge of jury would condemn such and act - thus affirming that there are no “intrinsically evil” acts. Funny stuff that we agree on the principle to follow, but we disagree on the wording.

 

[Della]

Redefinition is your friend. If all else fails - redefine the problem. Murder is an intentional taking of the life of another human being - that is it. Yet, some of the intentional killings is now not “defined” as not murder.

Sorry, but you are the one doing the “redefining”. Just because you think all killing is “murder” doesn’t make it so. Your philosophical reasons for thinking so are flawed, as has been explained to you.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Lt. Commander Data: “Would you choose one life over one thousand, sir?”

Captain Picard: “I refuse to let arithmetic decide questions like that.”

 

[Serious]

Sorry, but you are the one doing the “redefining”. Just because you think all killing is “murder” doesn’t make it so.

Please show me where did I say that all “killing” is “murder”. I said that murder is the premeditated taking the life of another human being.

 

[shoe]

I would accept extinction. I don’t believe that human beings have the moral authority to shed innocent blood (the Bible says as much); and certainly no one is more innocent than a baby.

 

[sw85]

This needs to ask for clarification. The “non-action” still will result the extinction of the whole human race, thus “depriving” God of all the possible future worshippers - which seems to be pretty serious.

It isn’t much of a stretch to say that omniscience would be aware of this and omnipotence capable of preventing this outcome, if it so desired.

So if we were put into this situation, it would be safe to assume that it’s because God would be OK with the extinction of the human race. Sounds to me like a good reason to let just that sort of thing happen.

The problem is that both the action and the non-action carry consequences. For example, if one sees a boulder starting to roll downhill (and could prevent it in time) and fails to do so, it would be a “cheap” excuse to say: “hey it was gravity that did it, why blame me?”. The fact is that there is no difference between “by commission” and “by omission”.

Stopping a boulder rolling down a hill isn’t evil. Killing someone is. Pushing a fat man in front of the boulder to stop it from rolling would be evil and you’d be morally forbidden from doing it.

Consequences are not the determinant of the ethical character of an action. Except in consequentialism, which the Church rejects.

In the case of war, every “killing of an enemy soldier” is premeditated - and thus it is a murder. Yet, it is “excused”. There is another one: “killing in self-defense” or in the defense of others. It is also a premeditated taking of the life of the attacker and it is also a murder, but also excused. So murder is not “intrinsically evil”… it is only wrong under some well defined circumstances and not wrong under some other circumstances.

Murder is illegitimate premeditated killing.

Killing someone in a (legitimate) war is therefore not murder and therefore not evil.

Redefinition is your friend. If all else fails - redefine the problem. Murder is an intentional taking of the life of another human being - that is it. Yet, some of the intentional killings is now not “defined” as not murder.

Duh. Because there are circumstances under which killing is legitimate (i.e. in accordance with the demands of justice, self-defense, or obedience to God). I cannot imagine even a single circumstance in which I would have to kill a baby in justice or self-defense and the scenario outlined in the OP makes clear that we do not have God’s explicit permission to kill the baby.

If that loaf of bread is the property of someone else, and you do not have permission to take it, then it is stealing. Rights are - of course - social constructs. In the tribal communities there are no “rights”, everyone owns the whole shebang and no one owns specific “things”.

Now, it just so happens that fundamentally I agree with you. Helping to prevent starvation superceeds the property rights. But that does not “redefine” the act to become “not stealing”. In a society where there are property rights, it will remain an act of stealing. But no decent judge of jury would condemn such and act - thus affirming that there are no “intrinsically evil” acts. Funny stuff that we agree on the principle to follow, but we disagree on the wording.

The bolded section above is false. Rights arise from our duties, and our duties from our natures.

There is a very limited right to private property. It does not extend beyond what is necessary to perform your duties to yourself, your family, the state, and God. Therefore you do not have a right to property which is not immediately necessary to the performance of these duties. Therefore there is no sin in someone taking that property in order to survive.

So your argument hinges on an equivocation. Of course “stealing” is always wrong. But “stealing” itself hinges on circumstances. It is not simply conflatable with “taking something that doesn’t belong to you.”

There are, in fact, “intrinsically evil” acts – i.e., acts that are always and everywhere immoral so that not even God can command it. The only one that man can perform is disobedience to God (the only one God can perform is the total affectation of nonbeing, i.e., total destruction of a being). Everything else is contingent with respect to the circumstances, the intentions, and the end: if absolutely nothing else, contingent with respect to whether or not God has ordered X.

 

[SonCatcher]

Let’s try this again:

Step 1:

Now catechize: one dead (in Christ) baby. The fact that he is also raised in Christ to new life is immaterial.

Step 2:

Now catechize: one baby consumed into Christ (the picture here is from a blog entry about the Eastern Churches that still practice infant communion - not currently permitted in the Latin Church but valid even there).

If there are other advanced beings out there, they may be in need of evangelization. Such an opportunity should not be squandered.

 

[Serious]

Stopping a boulder rolling down a hill isn’t evil.

Failing to stop that boulder, when you could do it would be evil, if you foresaw that it will kill someone. That is the point I was making. Care to comment on it?

Murder is illegitimate premeditated killing.

Killing someone in a (legitimate) war is therefore not murder and therefore not evil.

Ah, now you change your tune again. You wish to speak of “murder” as a legal term, not as a philosophical question. In that case, of course, killing in a war in not a murder - because it is specifically exempted. But in this case abortion is also not a murder, where it is legally allowed. Are you willing to concede that? Or are you trying to argue both for and against the “legally defined” murder?

Duh. Because there are circumstances under which killing is legitimate (i.e. in accordance with the demands of justice, self-defense, or obedience to God). I cannot imagine even a single circumstance in which I would have to kill a baby in justice or self-defense and the scenario outlined in the OP makes clear that we do not have God’s explicit permission to kill the baby.

You do not have God’s explicit permission anywhere. That is as weak as it comes. God does nor allow or deny anything explicitly. I would argue: “since God did not explicitly forbid the act, we can use our common sense”.

The bolded section above is false. Rights arise from our duties, and our duties from our natures.

There is a very limited right to private property. It does not extend beyond what is necessary to perform your duties to yourself, your family, the state, and God. Therefore you do not have a right to property which is not immediately necessary to the performance of these duties. Therefore there is no sin in someone taking that property in order to survive.

That is what true communism said (not the twisted version it was actualized). With the exception of God, of course. That is not how property rights are treated today.

So your argument hinges on an equivocation. Of course “stealing” is always wrong. But “stealing” itself hinges on circumstances. It is not simply conflatable with “taking something that doesn’t belong to you.”

Oh yes, it simply is.

There are, in fact, “intrinsically evil” acts – i.e., acts that are always and everywhere immoral so that not even God can command it. The only one that man can perform is disobedience to God (the only one God can perform is the total affectation of nonbeing, i.e., total destruction of a being). Everything else is contingent with respect to the circumstances, the intentions, and the end: if absolutely nothing else, contingent with respect to whether or not God has ordered X.

Interesting. So your definition of “intrinsically evil” cannot be separated from your concept of God. That is fine by me. Going back to original dilemma, since God did not explicitly forbid the killing of that “baybee”, there is no disobedience in the picture. As such that killing or any other killing is not “intrinsically evil”. I am happy with this conclusion.