Innocent? Need a definition

[LeafByNiggle]

It is a usual argument that intentionally killing an “innocent” person is always, under any condition an unethical (immoral) action. Unfortunately the word “innocent” is undefined. Can anyone provide a rigorous definition for it?

Actually, the concept of “innocent” is not the operative concept in determining if intentional killing is or is not moral. The relevant concept is as vern_humphrey said " when there is sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was reasonable for the subject to believe that there was an imminent and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm". I can give two examples that will dispel the connection to “innocent”.

1. You see a wanted criminal in the park. He is just sitting there feeding the pigeons. You shoot him to “help out the police.” He is not innocent, yet your shooting of him was immoral.
2. After a series of break-ins at your house, you are awakened in the middle of the night by the sound of someone fiddling with the door lock and then coming in to your house. The door opens. You assume he picked the lock. And when he comes in you shoot him in the dark out of fear. It turns out it was your son coming home to pay you a surprise visit. He is innocent, yet your decision to shoot him was moral, given what you knew and the circumstances under which it happened.

So the innocence of the victim is not the determining factor of when shooting that victim is moral. As to the question of a rigorous definition of “innocent”, I think it can only be nailed down in the context of a specific infraction. Someone may be innocent of one crime and guilty of another crime. The person himself, independently of reference to any particular crime or sin, is neither innocent or guilty in any rigorous sense. When we speak of a person being innocent, what we generally mean is “innocent of all relevant crimes or sins.”

 

[o_mlly]

We need to ponder the generic principle . If you are endangered by a rabid dog, no one will have a problem if you just shoot it. The dog is “innocent of malice”, it is merely sick. A human may also be sick, and in a direct encounter she may spread the lethal disease. Can we defend against the infection using any necessary force?

Self-defense or general defense is NOT limited to malevolent enemies. The so-called innocence is not the deciding factor.

An unjust threat implies the deliberative act of a moral agent, a human being. Only moral agents act justly or unjustly.

The rapid dog is a physical evil. Kill it.

The threat of disease emanating from a contagious human being is also a physical evil. Force may be used to contain the disease indirectly harming the infected one but no direct harm to the body-person of infected one is permitted because the person is innocent.

Act: Quarantine the infected and contagious person.

Moral Object: Good effect – protect the community from disease, bad effect – restrict the freedom of an individual.

Intent: Protect the community.

Circumstances: None

The right to health of the many is greater than the right to freedom of movement to the one.

---

Alternative: Infected one deliberately acts to infect others. The person is no longer innocent but an unjust threat. Any force necessary to protect others, including lethal if necessary is permitted.

 

[Economist]

Quarantine the infected and contagious person.

Wow! How could I have overlooked the obvious solution? Going back to the runaway trolley. Act: “invoke your magical powers to stop the trolley in time.” Redefining the problem solves it… each and every time. There is no difference between a rabid dog and a rabid person. Both are sick, both posit a lethal danger to others, and both are “innocent of malice”.

 

[Economist]

Actually, the concept of “innocent” is not the operative concept in determining if intentional killing is or is not moral. The relevant concept is as vern_humphrey said " when there is sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was reasonable for the subject to believe that there was an imminent and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm".

Well said.

 

[Wozza]

LeafByNiggle:

Actually, the concept of “innocent” is not the operative concept in determining if intentional killing is or is not moral. The relevant concept is as vern_humphrey said " when there is sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was reasonable for the subject to believe that there was an imminent and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm".

Well said.

I’ll go with what Leaf has said. A person suffering from rabies might well be mentally confused and violent. If I thought there was a definite risk of them attacking me then I would be within my rights to use lethal force against them (assuming no other means available). But I would be killing an innocent person.

This is very similar to a 9/11 situation. Do you shoot down the plane sacrificing 200 to save two thousand? Unfortunately yes.

 

[Economist]

I’ll go with what Leaf has said. A person suffering from rabies might well be mentally confused and violent. If I thought there was a definite risk of them attacking me then I would be within my rights to use lethal force against them (assuming no other means available). But I would be killing an innocent person.

I agree with you and Leaf. (Just don’t take the example as if it were “set in stone”. It is just an example. The point is that the morality of ANY act can only be decided if and when ALL the details are considered.)

This is very similar to a 9/11 situation. Do you shoot down the plane sacrificing 200 to save two thousand? Unfortunately yes.

Yes, it is very unfortunate. But sometimes the circumstances limit our choices. In such a case we do what must be done. As one of the characters in Asimov’s wonderful “Foundation Series” said: “Never let your sense of morality prevent you from doing what is right!”

I prefer the “extended” Hippocratic oath: “First, do no harm. But if the circumstances force you to do harm, then do as little harm as possible.” How can any rational person disagree with this principle, is beyond me. It is possible to have a disagreement about the application of the principle, but no disagreement can be postulated about the principle itself. I have yet to see anyone to bring up a rational argument against this principle.

 

[Wozza]

As one of the characters in Asimov’s wonderful “Foundation Series” said: “Never let your sense of morality prevent you from doing what is right!”

Isaac nailed it.

Too many people treat morality as a set of rules chiseled in stone (adjacent a burning bush perhaps). But they need to be interpreted depending on each individual situation. Life is not black and white. Treating it as such is naiive in the extreme.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

As one of the characters in Asimov’s wonderful “Foundation Series” said: “Never let your sense of morality prevent you from doing what is right!”

As much as I loved reading the Foundation trilogy, and Foundation’s Edge, etc., I would not use this Salvador Hardin quote to apply to any real-world moral decisions. For one thing it is a fallacy because it contradicts the meaning of the word “morality.” When properly formed, morality is what is right. The meaning of the quote is either…

1. Morality is unimportant if it prevents the achievement of worldly self-interest.
2. Some people’s judgement of morality is not really “right”.

Thinking of the character of Salvador Hardin, and knowing what I know about Asimov, I suspect it is #1. As a Catholic I am not willing to accept that statement.

 

[Wozza]

Economist:

As one of the characters in Asimov’s wonderful “Foundation Series” said: “Never let your sense of morality prevent you from doing what is right!”

As much as I loved reading the Foundation trilogy, and Foundation’s Edge, etc., I would not use this Salvador Hardin quote to apply to any real-world moral decisions. For one thing it is a fallacy because it contradicts the meaning of the word “morality.” When properly formed, morality is what is right. The meaning of the quote is either…

1. Morality is unimportant if it prevents the achievement of worldly self-interest.
2. Some people’s judgement of morality is not really “right”.

Thinking of the character of Salvador Hardin, and knowing what I know about Asimov, I suspect it is #1. As a Catholic I am not willing to accept that statement.

I think there are two meanings to the term ‘morality’. One is, as you say, an indication of what is right. And that is always relative. To the person experiencing any given siuation and to the situation itslef.

The second meaning is how most people on threads like these tend to accept it: A set of principles which determines what is right or wrong. But they cannot, and must not, be applied to any and all situations. Which some people do, but those principles then become rules.

 

[o_mlly]

There is no difference between a rabid dog and a rabid person. Both are sick, both posit a lethal danger to others, and both are “innocent of malice”.

Catholics believe there is a fundamental difference between a dog and a human being, whether sick or not. Catholics believe there is a moral difference between an innocent human being and an unjust aggressor.

I have no idea what “invoke your magical powers” means as it relates to the trolley dilemma. No one claimed such a thing in that thread. ?

The object of the act of quarantine is to contain the disease, not the person. We know the act is directed at the disease because any person, not this particular person, with the disease would be contained.

 

[o_mlly]

Catholics believe there is a moral difference between an innocent human being and an unjust aggressor.

“As long as a man is not guilty, his life is untouchable, and therefore any act directly tending to destroy it is illicit, whether such destruction is intended as an end in itself or only as a means to an end …”

Pope Pius XII, Discourse to the Saint Luke Union of Italian Doctors, 12 November 1944; as cited in Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Procured Abortion (18 November 1974), no. 7 n. 15.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The second meaning is how most people on threads like these tend to accept it: A set of principles which determines what is right or wrong. But they cannot, and must not, be applied to any and all situations. Which some people do, but those principles then become rules.

That absolute sense of morality can indeed be applied by all people in all situations - even situations about which we have only incomplete knowledge - if those people pledge themselves to the same ethical system, such as Catholicism. For them morality must not be viewed as relative to each person’s whims. For them morality is an absolute value defined by God. Not surprisingly. Asimov was an atheist, and it shows in his writing.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

The second meaning is how most people on threads like these tend to accept it: A set of principles which determines what is right or wrong. But they cannot, and must not, be applied to any and all situations. Which some people do, but those principles then become rules.

That absolute sense of morality can indeed be applied by all people in all situations - even situations about which we have only incomplete knowledge - if those people pledge themselves to the same ethical system, such as Catholicism. For them morality must not be viewed as relative to each person’s whims. For them morality is an absolute value defined by God. Not surprisingly. Asimov was an atheist, and it shows in his writing.

But an absolute system of morality doesn’t allow for different situations. In the aircraft example above, a rigid adoption of the Catholic system of morality (or at least a version to which some people hold) means that rather than saving one person over another, everyone dies.

The person who refuses to do anything is effectively condemning everyone to death rather than saving one person over another.

Again I will ask, if someone else steps in to save the day by ministering to the pilot as opposed to the terrorist, would you actively prevent that person from doing so? Or is it the case that: ‘Hey, it’s no longer my problem’.

 

[meltzerboy2]

Legally, however, being found not guilty in a court of law does not mean the person charged with a crime is innocent. It means only that there is insufficient evidence to find the person guilty.

 

[meltzerboy2]

Would all or any of this also be applicable to the intentional killing of “innocent” people en masse in a so-called just war, or the unintentional “collateral damage” that is necessarily part of any war? In other words, how are concepts such as innocence and morality used in the context of killings on a broad scale during wartime?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

But an absolute system of morality doesn’t allow for different situations. In the aircraft example above, a rigid adoption of the Catholic system of morality (or at least a version to which some people hold) means that rather than saving one person over another, everyone dies.

You will have to be more specific about which aircraft scenario you mean. Several have been mentioned.

 

[Economist]

Catholics believe there is a fundamental difference between a dog and a human being, whether sick or not. Catholics believe there is a moral difference between an innocent human being and an unjust aggressor.

No problem. But the danger to one’s life is not contingent upon the attacker being aware of the danger and/or its intentions. You are allowed to any defense, as long as it is not excessive. That is also a catholic teaching.

I have no idea what “invoke your magical powers” means as it relates to the trolley dilemma. No one claimed such a thing in that thread. ?

The magic was invoked by YOU, when you suggested the quarantine - which is NOT available. There is no third option, either get infected and die (along with untold others), or use the “bullet-cure” and solve the problem. That is ALL. Two options. And “third” option is invoking “magic”.

 

[o_mlly]

No problem. But the danger to one’s life is not contingent upon the attacker being aware of the danger and/or its intentions. You are allowed to any defense, as long as it is not excessive. That is also a catholic teaching.

Catholic teaching allows self-defense, lethal if necessary, only against an unjust aggressor. One does not “defend” in the absence of an offense. How is the person who has the bad luck of infection seen to be offensive?

The magic was invoked by YOU, when you suggested the quarantine - which is NOT available. There is no third option, either get infected and die (along with untold others), or use the “bullet-cure” and solve the problem. That is ALL. Two options. And “third” option is invoking “magic”.

No, I did not invoke any “magic” in the trolley thread. No quarantine available? That is a new circumstance. Please give us the complete scenario: the act, the foreseen outcomes, the intent and all the relevant circumstances.

 

[Economist]

As much as I loved reading the Foundation trilogy, and Foundation’s Edge, etc., I would not use this Salvador Hardin quote to apply to any real-world moral decisions. For one thing it is a fallacy because it contradicts the meaning of the word “morality.” When properly formed, morality is what is right. The meaning of the quote is either…

1. Morality is unimportant if it prevents the achievement of worldly self-interest.
2. Some people’s judgement of morality is not really “right”.

Thinking of the character of Salvador Hardin, and knowing what I know about Asimov, I suspect it is #1. As a Catholic I am not willing to accept that statement.

I think that he meant #2. After all Asimov was not just an atheist, but a humanist. The problem with the concept of “moral” is that there is no single ethical system. An action is considered “moral” if it follows the requirements of one’s particular ethical system. As such the same action performed under the same circumstances is considered moral by person “A” and considered immoral by person “B”. That is why I reject the concept of “absolute” morality.

In the “trolley” scenario (actually in every ethical dilemma) the basic question is: “what is the aim of the action”? If your basic ethical principle is: “let’s save as many lives as we can”, then you flip the switch. If you basic ethical principle is “non-interference cannot be unethical, because it does not DIRECTLY cause the deaths of those poor five people, merely ALLOWS it”, then you do not act. Two observers, subscribing to two different ethical systems, will evaluate the decisions differently.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

As much as I loved reading the Foundation trilogy, and Foundation’s Edge, etc., I would not use this Salvador Hardin quote to apply to any real-world moral decisions. For one thing it is a fallacy because it contradicts the meaning of the word “morality.” When properly formed, morality is what is right. The meaning of the quote is either…

1. Morality is unimportant if it prevents the achievement of worldly self-interest.
2. Some people’s judgement of morality is not really “right”.

Thinking of the character of Salvador Hardin, and knowing what I know about Asimov, I suspect it is #1. As a Catholic I am not willing to accept that statement.

I think that he meant #2. After all Asimov was not just an atheist, but a humanist. The problem with the concept of “moral” is that there is no single ethical system. An action is considered “moral” if it follows the requirements of one’s particular ethical system. As such the same action performed under the same circumstances is considered moral by person “A” and considered immoral by person “B”. That is why I reject the concept of “absolute” morality.

The basis on which you reject absolute morality depends on seeing all ethical systems as equal. From a civil governmental point of view we have to do that to some extent, but most adherents to a moral ethical system do hold that theirs is more correct than others, except perhaps for humanists, who hold the view that they are all equal. But I reject that aspect of humanist ideology. I also don’t think it is intellectually honest to say “I believe X” and at the same time say “the view that ‘not-X’ is just as valid”. It brings into question the premise that “I believe X.” For example, “I believe murder is wrong” but “people who believe murder is OK have a good point too.” Really?

In the “trolley” scenario (actually in every ethical dilemma) the basic question is: “what is the aim of the action”? If your basic ethical principle is: “let’s save as many lives as we can”, then you flip the switch. If you basic ethical principle is “non-interference cannot be unethical, because it does not DIRECTLY cause the deaths of those poor five people, merely ALLOWS it”, then you do not act.

I disagree with your characterization of the opposing view. It is not “non-interference cannot be unethical.” Indeed there are times when Catholic morality demands action and it would be immoral not to act at those times. But this is not one of those times.

Two observers, subscribing to two different ethical systems, will evaluate the decisions differently.

That doesn’t mean they are both equally likely to be right.